See: Why the Nation Doesn't Need Massachusetts Health Care
Massachusetts Health Care Takes a Seat on the S***ter
The Massachusetts Model
The Universal Health Care Rip-Off
Swapping Partners Good For Health
The Business of Health Care
The Most Important Civil Rights Issue of the Century
And HOW MANY TIMES I gotta LINK Sicko, anyway?
Let me beat that dead horse once more: IF we can not put otgether something like what the Canadians, French, or English, then I don't want any part of it. Take PROFIT and INSURANCE OUT and make it SINGLE-PAYER like THEY HAVE!!!
We ALL KNOW WHY ($$$$) AmeriKa doesn't have national health care, don't we?
"Subsidized care costs state $794m; Companies relying on Commonwealth for health coverage" by Kay Lazar, Globe Staff | April 2, 2009
The state's bill for providing healthcare to employees and their families who work for large companies increased 24.6 percent to $793.7 million in the last fiscal year, according to a report released yesterday.
The report showed that while the state's landmark 2006 health initiative extended coverage to thousands of Massachusetts residents, many employers - particularly large retailers - continue to rely on state subsidy programs to provide health benefits to workers.
It is TIME for SINGLE PAYER because YOU ARE PAYING ANYWAY, TAXPAYER!!!!!!!!!!!
Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, tops the new list with 4,796 workers receiving public health coverage, followed closely by Stop & Shop, with 4,731. The rankings, which include only companies with 50-plus employees, are largely similar to last year's....
Oh, WAL-MART of all people TOPS the LIST, huh? I NEVER SHOP THERE and NEVER WILL!!
Related: Wal-Mart to Put Local Farm Stands Out of Business
AmeriKan Fascism and Corporate Control of Farms
Massachusetts' Wal-Mart Grocery
Upper-Middle Class Now Wal-Mart Shoppers
Weathering the Boston Globe Business Lies
And all the while:
"Wal-Mart Stores Inc. will pay as much as $640 million to settle 63 federal and state class actions claiming the company cheated hourly workers and forced them to work through breaks"
The jump is likely to reignite the debate about whether employers should pay more to the state for their workers who are receiving subsidized care. "Increasingly, employers are getting tremendous benefits under health reform," said Lindsey Tucker, policy manager at Health Care for All, a large consumer group that helped create the 2006 law....
Health Care for All is backing legislation that would require employers to contribute more, a proposal criticized by the state's largest business trade group, Associated Industries of Massachusetts, which also played a large role in shaping the state law.
"When we designed healthcare reform, we tried to strike a balance in terms of what employers responsibilities should be, and also tried to make sure we weren't placing Massachusetts employers at a competitive disadvantage," said AIM's chief executive, Richard Lord....
SINGLE PAYER!
The law requires nearly everyone to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty. But third on the list of employers with the most workers enrolled in public health coverage is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts....
No wonder I keep having the feeling that this system sucks despite the approval of the agenda-pushing papers. And now you know why they approve: business and corporate interests benefits from the plan.
And yet they and their mouthpiece media here portrayed them as such do-gooders concerned only about your health. Yeah, I am downright sick of the lying.
Sarah Iselin, commissioner of the Division of Health Care Finance and Policy, the agency that produced the report, said the state provides generous health benefits, compared to many employers....
Yeah, and youy KNOW WHO is PAYING FOR IT!!!!!!!
--more--"
