NukleoN

Build it, and they will come!

For everyone to be covered, everyone has to pay in. A greater pool of people paying in means lower costs shouldered by individuals and the government as a whole. People often can't control the diseases they get, and those which can be controlled still need preventive advice from doctors, but that requires patients willing to see doctors without the fear of going broke in the process. With a government-mandate to pay in or if funds are taken from existing taxes there won't be 'freeloaders' and the costs would be shouldered by everyone to cover everyone. That's the only way Universal healthcare can (and does) work.

Gas prices...wow...a whole other can of worms. Electric cars, more infrastructure, better batteries and I'll take a Tesla Roadster sport in orange, please. I actually do own a smart car, but I didn't buy it for the great MPG but because I love micro-cars. Still, it's great on gas (best MPG behind the hybrids) and cost only like 15k Out The Door. Cheap!

Well, first I think the death panels are exaggerated. Canadians are not stupid, and they would never stand for this treatment. But think about it, who decides your fate when you have no insurance? The for-profit hospital? Who decides your fate when your insurance runs out? That's right, insurance companies. Whoever decides my fate, I want it to be both trained medical professionals and people who care about me, assuming I am not lucid. I would bet you something though Ash, if Universal healthcare does happen (and it will), 100 pills for you will certainly not be $850 anymore, which is highway robbery. I think you'd probably have a co-pay and you'd be off living your life. Trust me, when it happens, you (and millions of others) will wonder how a great, forward-thinking nation like ours went so long without it.

Sorry, my allegiance is to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He touched me with his noodly appendage.

Ash, it was a hypothetical. You're only a year older than me and neither of us is eligible (yet) for Medicare. We will be when we turn 65, but we will have Universal healthcare long before that time. May I ask, what insurance do you have now, if any, and how do you have it? You can be a rebel and be intelligent with regard to healthcare. For America to be strong, our Americans need to be *alive* and able-bodied. Being healthy means better morale for the nation, instead of plagued by medical debt and insolvency. Americans as a whole have great medical *technology*, but it's useless without sufficient access. We need access to healthcare with cost controls on doctors, procedures, hospital stays, and drugs. We need preventive care and preferably without going bankrupt and without putting the burden of healthcare on employers in a competitive global economy. The fact that France is number one ranked by the World Health Organization with regard to healthcare, and manages to do this for 11% of its GDP as opposed to America's 17% makes a good case. Universal healthcare, as measured in every nation that has it, is overwhelmingly more efficient, cheaper (for government and per person) and results in more quality life years and less infant mortality for those who benefit from it. These are statistics as measured by a reputable source, the World Health Organization. Feel free to browse their site. What else explains the richest nation on Earth coming in 37th with regard to healthcare? We can do better. We just need to learn from other countries and apply the best system which would work for a large country like ours. I am thinking the German system would be a good fit for us....where we keep private insurance, but there's a government-mandate to pay in, we all get a base package of benefits and the for-profit motive is removed to eliminate corruption, while insurance companies can still compete for our business with added-benefits, better customer service, etc. We have everything to lose, and a lot to gain.

This is true. Yes, I agree BJ that something NEEDS to be done, I just don't agree with the government control over what we do and what we don't.I agree to disagree, I do agree with some points, but we as a free people cannot let them take one inch of our freedom away from us. We are already letting them do way to much to us as it is. Thats why my fore fathers died..... to be free. period. Good lord guy's, we already let them tell us what to do in OUR OWN car.... Get your seat belt on, sit down, and shutup!!!!! They tried to chop our guns up, thats not going to happen without a war! Just wait, the south's gonna do it again! weeeeeeee heehehh Here's where your misconception creeps in, because Universal healthcare is not an abridgment of rights but an expansion of rights and a way to get from under the thumb of for-profit insurance companies and a corrupt system, while some groups have coverage over other groups. As every other first-world country with Universal healthcare demonstrates, you will not be goose-stepping in Times Square simply because you go from private insurance to government-backed insurance. Remember, Medicare has worked for years with efficiency and is a government-run system. So is VA care and prisoner care. Think about this. All Universal healthcare is is a way to consolidate all these disparate systems into one, more efficient system, which covers everyone (not just some) and spreads costs over more people to lower your personal costs. It's basic economics. Germany has a system where individuals have a government-guaranteed package and keep private insurance their entire lives. The insurance company only gets government funds if the individual chooses to remain with a particular company, and Germans have about 200 different companies to choose from. This competition breeds better customer-service and added-value coverage, etc. These companies compete in a capitalistic sense, yet every German is guaranteed a base package of healthcare by the government so insurance companies cannot play games with insurance denial, refusal, denying tests and procedures ordered by trained medical staff, reject people with pre-existing conditions (which is one of the reasons we need healthcare to begin with), etc. Removing the for-profit status of insurance companies and having a government-backed base healthcare package gives us choice, coverage (the purpose of healthcare) while removing corruption that exists now. For those who work union, it's the same concept. There is power in numbers, and it helps to prevent corruption. The current system is rife with corruption and it needs reform and an overhaul. This will be an improvement for everyone and at a lower cost (I know it's hard to believe), but all one needs to do is go live in another first-world country for a while and experience a different system firsthand. Barring that, read about it in the book I recommended. The point is to retain our freedoms without being forced as Americans in the richest nation on Earth to choose between healthcare and bankruptcy for those of us who happen not to be insured, or whose jobs don't offer health insurance. None of us choose cancer or Alzheimer's or choose to have kids with debilitating diseases, but yet these things happen. It is currently illegal to drive in most states without car insurance. Is this socialism? After all, car insurance is required, with stiff penalties for being caught driving without it. We are even asked to pay more to cover those who don't have it for any reason. Is this socialism, or good economics? Likewise, we cannot afford to cover all Americans (including the sickest Americans), if for-profit insurance companies are free to cherry-pick only the healthiest people to cover while rejecting and playing games of rescission with the rest. This is if nothing else, inhumane and un-American, as a great nation and leading world-power who values its most valuable asset: We The People.

My income (which you apparently underestimate) is not relevant to your obvious spelling errors. Since my corrections are valid, no amount of income will change the observed fact of a repeatedly misspelled word. Now, I am not saying you're not smart because you can't spell common words, but I do question your attention-to-detail and observation skills. Also, your reaction to a simple spelling-correction (which you can probably fix easily) isn't ideal for someone willing to correct mistakes. How does this apply to your facts regarding healthcare? It makes me think you're not listening, and probably not too open to consider views you don't already hold. See the connection? So, you only learn from fifth-grade teachers? Last I checked, education never stops. I am 42, I take it you're about my age? I am always learning, even from Internet forums. I am not trying to down you, but you might want to take up your apparent spelling frustration with the a dictionary or accept that your misspellings are wrong until you decide to fix them. Personally, I thank those who correct my repeated spelling-errors, but that's me. I want to be less wrong and more right. Please try not to take this personally. You have the *right* to say what you want in general, but you don't have the right to have your views respected if your views are obviously wrong in some demonstrable way. Simply because we have different viewpoints doesn't mean they're equal or that the truth lies in the middle. That's a false-equivalence fallacy, something you learn about well past fifth-grade. The bottom line here regarding this issue is that you clearly need to do more research and talk with less certainty about a subject you're not very certain about, because what you say (which is what we know about your views) is full of misinformation or just outright fear. Remember, you compared Universal healthcare to Hitler. Think about what you say if you want people to react well to your views. They don't get respect merely because you hold them, and all views are subject to scrutiny, especially when you post them on public forums. Unfortunately, your spelling does affect your credibility...because if you can't muster 3-letter words, how much are you really reviewing your facts? Perhaps I am wrong to make that connection, yet I do, and many others might as well. (Didn't your fifth-grade teacher tell you this?). Also, I think you'd be surprised to find out how much your 850.00 drugs costs in Mexico or Canada, if you'd care to research it. If you name the drug I can probably help research it, but that's your private matter and if you choose not to disclose it, I wouldn't blame ya. Stay on point, and let's not get too personal.

to=too. You're welcome.

The medical profession is not currently in the public sector, at least not most of it. The government takes care of schools, fire, police, parks, military, currency, permits and zoning, drug regulations (FDA), Healthcare for Medicare, veterans, active military, prisoners, government employees and the very poor, why on Earth couldn't they handle a reformed and consolidated system? Social Security is just fine as long as the money is left unmolested. Where would a lot of older people be without it? Welfare actually helps some people, but abuses can be reformed, like anything else. Universal healthcare is done better and cheaper in other countries, and America has a lot to learn from them, especially France, Germany and the U.K.

Well if you're 65 or older, you're eligible for Medicare whether you sign up or not. Your views are not equal to mine, because you're not informed about the facts, and I am. Come on Ash, you brought up socialism, death panels and Hitler. Your views are comically misinformed on the matter and at best, silly non-sequitur mixed with some TeaBagger hyperbole. That doesn't stop me from trying to improve your outlook with data. I say that out of observation, not as an attempt to put you down. I generally like you, even if we disagree, so don't be distracted by my direct language. Just go research, and ignore this thread until you've learned more about how U.S. healthcare works, how for-profit insurance companies make your drugs cost 850.00 and how it's done better in other countries. I recommend you read, 'The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care.' by T.R. Reid. It's really educational. Now, you characterize Medicare eligibility with 'sitting on your butt', but nobody said a thing about sitting on your butt. You're erroneously conflating 'working' with 'healthcare'. Universal healthcare is just a means of keeping Americans healthy, but detaching this responsibility from your job (which pays you already). Also, if a company doesn't have to take care of YOUR healthcare, they can afford to hire more people and are more internationally competitive. That's a boost for the economy and for people 'sitting on their butts' when they could be working. Supporting the current system actually KEEPS people sitting on their butts when the economy tanks, as it has. When I lost my job in 2008, I lost healthcare and my income, but I've been freelancing ever since with no health insurance. It's silly to have healthcare tied to a job when it should be tied to a person. I don't rely on my job for car-insurance, after all, why should a job be responsible for my health insurance? Hopefully next time you spend 850.00 on 100 pills you'll think about some of the things you've read in this thread.

You are starting to realize that for-profit insurance companies ARE the problem. Think about it, would the government (which runs Medicare) also let them charge you that much for drugs? They can fix pricing AND spread costs over 305 million Americans. This would mean your drugs would be a reasonable price. Guess how much those same drugs would cost in Mexico? Probably pennies on the dollar. Same with France, the UK, Japan, Canada, etc. This is the result of two things. One, health insurance companies bargain with doctors and drug manufacturers for lower prices. As a response, drug companies and doctors increase their 'sticker price', which for the uninsured is astronomical. Right now, the uninsured pay 4x more for the same care than an insured person, and sometimes more than that. The for-profit insurance companies ARE the problem, but this is because of exactly what you fight against, lack of reform. First, we need to reform costs, second, we need to spread costs amongst not just your company or VA care, Medicare or however you have insurance, but between 305 million Americans. If everyone pays in and with government regulation, costs will come way down and ironically healthcare will cost less for the government than it does now. The problem is with lack of reform, but also the fact that health care costs are not spread enough because not everyone is paying in to the same system. You have various systems which have overlap (VA care and Medicare for example) but there's no organized, consolidated system with reforms, checks and balances for ALL Americans as a single pool as exists in other countries which spend far less, and with far less personal cost for better healthcare. Are you on Medicare Ash? If so, you can thank Bush's privatized drug policy for the crazy increase in prices. Medicare is government-run, but privatized drug policies are not. Guess which area has the most corruption? Again, Medicare is efficient and with very low overhead, meaning costs are regulated. Private, for-profit drug and insurance companies don't have regulated pricing and will always be more expensive, even if they don't need to be. Again, it's even worse if you're uninsured because there's nobody negotiating down the crazy sticker prices. It will cost up to 4x more if you are uninsured than the bargained-for price for the insured, depending on your insurance company. It's a hot mess, and your example is one reason why government-run, single-payer system with reforms (and caps on doctor salaries) would improve the situation of all Americans. Doctors in the U.K. make about 80k a year, which is a healthy living. They do train just as much as American doctors, without the crazy salaries. There's prestige that goes with being a doctor so the reward doesn't need to be simply financial. Seriously, go find out how much your drug costs at a Mexican pharmacy. Or, check the prices in Universal-healthcare countries such as Canada, France, the U.K. Sweden, Japan, Germany, Taiwan, etc. All of these countries have Universal healthcare in different forms. If you know a friend in these countries, have them call the pharmacy and ask about the price of the exact prescription you need. You might be surprised. Check out this link about why drugs are cheaper in Mexico and Canada: http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/prescriptiondrugs/a/foreign_pharmacies.htm

Yep very cool!

Ash, First, I would like you to define 'socialism' and then tell me what you think of Medicare? Medicare, as you probably aren't aware, was the brainchild of Tommy Douglas, a Canadian socialist. Most seniors 65 or older report being happy with Medicare, and Medicare runs with very little overhead. America has several socialized medicine programs (I am using the word to drive home the point), just not for everyone. As I mentioned in an earlier post, if you're a government employee, you get health care. If you're a prisoner, you get healthcare. If you're active or veteran military, you get healthcare. If you're a terrorist detainee at Gitmo, you get healthcare. If you're a senior 65 or older, you get healthcare. If you're very poor (indigent), you qualify for healthcare. The people who are left out in the cold? Everyone else, and if your job doesn't provide healthcare, too bad. America leaves 50 million people without any insurance at all...and many are under-insured. Simply saying 'socialism' does nothing to further your argument. Canada has wait lists, but so does America, but America's system makes you wait AND can make you bankrupt (sometimes, even with insurance, depending on your need). Canada will also bump people up with emergency conditions, but people with elective surgeries tend to wait the longest. The wait times in Canada have gotten much better in recent years. But think about this, would you rather WAIT for health services that won't make you go bankrupt, or go without health insurance, wait to have a catastrophic event and then go bankrupt because of a few days of intensive care? Think about it. Waiting is always better than dying, or dying of otherwise treatable diseases because you were too worried about costs being uninsured or under-insured. Let's not forget, Americans DO wait for healthcare, and instead of the doctors making decisions about your care, that's often left up to for-profit insurance companies who are beholden to investors and stock-holders...they are not trained in medicine but are instead trained in profits. Do you really want insurance companies making these decisions which should be left to medical experts? I don't. Your irrational fear of social programs has zero to do with furthering your argument. You do understand that public schools, military, fire and police, parks and rec, and currency distribution, etc. are all government-run, right? The U.S. is a secular democratic republic and does not operate on the Bible, so the Bible (or any religious document) is not germane to the discussion. I for one reject utterly any Bible as a source of authority, so Biblical examples aren't relevant to me personally, but definitely not relevant to any argument for healthcare, which is still provided by humans, not god(s). The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: 'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibit the free-exercise thereof'. So, your particular god (and the gods you don't believe in) can't encroach on your rights or make you a second-class citizen because of governmental endorsement. Wow, you managed to drag Hitler into this? Unbelievable. It's logically self-evident that SOME of some good thing (healthcare) is better than NONE of a good thing. The current system actually discourages the uninsured from getting care (and preventive care) and in the long run this costs us all more money. The current system lets for-profit insurance companies attempt to cherry-pick the healthiest people, while refusing or rescinding coverage for those with 'pre-existing' conditions, sometimes even refusing service after premiums have been paid for years citing an undisclosed 'pre-existing condition', which verges on fraud. Other countries as measured for QALY (Quality-Adjusted Life Years) do better than the U.S., and again, every other country which provides universal health care does it CHEAPER than America without leaving people out. France spends about 11% of its GDP on healthcare compared to 17% in the U.S., covers all its citizens and is rated number 1 from the World Health Organization (go look it up). America ranks 37th just ahead of Slovenia, and 22nd in infant morality (lower numbers are better). America is the richest nation in the world, but performs miserably in healthcare. This broken system needs reform first, then an overhaul. It is a fact that the number one cause of bankruptcy in America is caused by medical bills. This is a fact, and you can verify this for yourself. Quoted from the World Health Organization site: The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy. One of the burdens companies have is having to provide healthcare. Healthcare costs add a substantial amount to each American car you buy, because this cost is borne by the company and the employee, when it should be shared by the American populace to spread costs over 305 million people. There's cheap labor elsewhere, and if Americans continue to suck at science and math we will lose far more jobs. Also, every other first-world nation on the planet has Universal health care, so foreign companies don't have this overhead to worry about. Socialism is your hot-word, but think about it, would you dissolve Medicare simply because it was dreamed up by a Canadian socialist? How about public schools, fire or police services, or any other government-run service? You can't have something like healthcare be for-profit and not be corrupt, as our system is now. I've written a lot in this thread already but it seems you've ignored it. It's evident and on the web. I can't believe you're also a birther (well, I am not that surprised). Obama could not be president if he weren't a citizen, silly. There are people smarter than both of us who have verified this, and with far better security credentials with respect to background-checks. As a baseline test, do you also think 911 was an inside job, and that the moon-landing was faked? They're not equally crooks, if at all. The case can be made based on performance. Bush was a nightmare for the U.S., and we're still recovering from 8 years under his anti-intellectual, incurious and god-soaked monarchy presidency. Seriously, don't just take my word for it. Do your research on healthcare. Pick a first-world nation. ANY first-world nation. Now read about their healthcare. You will find it's more efficient and cheaper (as a measure of GDP) than America's. Also, you are when contracted is you're. I see you make that mistake a lot. It's never too late to improve and learn new things.

You're welcome. (Yes, I know I wasn't named explicitly, but I sensed a great disturbance in the force).

Thanks John. I've been studying this issue for the last 6 months and have collected some good data and read several books on the topic. I got tired of hearing all the ill-informed people shrieking about 'socialism' and Obamacare and wanted to learn for myself. I found it screamingly hilarious that some of the people who utter the magic word 'socialism' are on Medicare or have relatives on Medicare which was the brainchild of a Canadian socialist. Poll after poll shows seniors to be generally happy with Medicare, and moreso than those covered by private insurance. Administrative costs are very low with Medicare due to the government controls, and administration is one of the huge costs of for-profit insurance (someone needs to be taking care of all those denials and rescissions). HMO's have a bad track record and have a litany of complaints as well. Another huge downside of for-profit insurance companies is that instead of letting the expert decide which tests you need (the doctor and staff), that essentially is up to an insurance company beholden to investors watching their profits. This is a terrible way to manage health care. Politicians like Sarah Palin like to use the phrase, 'Death Panels', which is sheer fiction, but there are always priorities. Go to an emergency room, and often you'll have to wait if a worse case comes in. Ask to see a specialist, and your HMO may deny it, or deny a procedure or surgery. There's wait time to see doctors and specialists, or to have procedures done. Our emergency rooms are way overcrowded and under-funded, and some have to shut down simply from a lack of funding, but a general lack of healthcare also puts more stress on ER's as people tend to treat them like primary care, especially recent immigrants (legal or not). No health system is perfect, but there are a lot of great systems around the world which American can learn from and adapt for a nation of our size. The most basic premise is simple, everyone pays in, everyone is covered. The rest are details we can sort out, and nobody should expect to be exempt from a time when they might have a catastrophic illness or accident which requires health-insurance and expensive treatment (or have a child or loved-one in need in a similar situation). Health care is one thing, bills are another...but in the end it's about staying alive and not letting our nation's greatest resource (our people), suffer or die simply because they can't get access to affordable healthcare. Other countries see this as a basic right, and America is starting to get it, but we have a seemingly-endless onslaught of ignorance fighting against it. It's too bad we can't strip government-supplied healthcare from politicians who vote against reform, let alone Universal healthcare. John Boehner, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, etc. ALL have Universal healthcare because they're current or former government employees. The hypocrisy is monumental in their resistance to insurance reform. What's better, spreading the cost over America's healthcare over 305,000,000 people or a company's group plan with 100, 1,000 or even 10,000 employees? The more we spread out the costs, the more it makes sense to cover everyone under a single-payer system. Not only would this cost-spreading make it possible to cover everyone, it would dramatically reduce administrative costs (especially as we convert to digital medical records carried on a card), and overall costs as a percentage of America's Gross Domestic Product. As every other first-world nation (and some third-world nations) prove, Universal coverage can be done not just better, but cheaper. Universal healthcare removes the profit incentive and unnecessary administration present in American insurance companies, doctors would again be in control of your healthcare (rather than insurance companies watching their profits), we could have preventive care for everyone (which saves costs long-term) and if someone loses a job, there's no more worry about losing health insurance (which can affect entire families). Even with the recent Tsunami in Japan....at least everyone in that country has healthcare, as one news-correspondent commented. Finally, for those of us out of work, think of how much strain it puts on businesses to be responsible not just for our salaries, but also our healthcare. This burden no doubts costs some jobs. I for one would love to use part of my 28% tax to pay into healthcare and also receive benefits and relieve any job I may have of a duty which has no business being theirs in the first place. I would rather the money my work spends on health insurance go to creating more jobs, but this would affect all companies if there was a government-backed single-payer system and result in more jobs everywhere. Healthcare for everyone is like education, it benefits society at large and makes us a stronger, more egalitarian nation in line with 21st century ethics.

I agree. I make my living doing computer work, so working with my hands is a nice change, and therapeutic for sure. Welcome to the world of vinyl cutting!

Any healthcare better is better than NO healthcare, where having any kind of illness means a choice between treatment or bankruptcy. Canada has gotten better with the wait queues, but let's not forget, Americans have to wait too! Not only do we wait for specialist care, surgeries, etc., we have to deal with the hordes of people in emergency rooms who use this as their primary care (for a variety of reasons).

Not only do we need reform, America's healthcare system needs a complete overhaul. We rank 37th according to the World Health Organization, I think that's just ahead of Slovenia. Every other first-world nation proves how much better that can cover everyone and do it much cheaper than America spending 17% of its GDP on healthcare while leaving 50 million people with no coverage, meaning they don't get preventive care, and that costs more in the long run. Also, America does have *some* government-backed coverage, just not for everyone. If you're a prisoner, you get health care, even if you get second-rate care, you still get treated when you need it over a non-criminal who isn't covered and often has to choose between going broke or treating serious illness, which may have gotten worse while expensive treatment was avoided. Government employees even get healthcare (even the R-tards who are against healthcare for the rest of us). So do active and retired military, the indigent and anyone 65 or older (Medicare). Medicare was the brain-child of Tommy Douglas, a Canadian socialist, but this system is far more efficient than even private healthcare, and excludes no seniors. Bush's privatized drug program didn't do seniors any favors though. Yes, the people who call it 'Obamacare' and vote against for-profit insurance reform get a form of Universal healthcare. Talk about removing motivation, not to mention hypocrisy. Every other first-world nation on Earth that provides national healthcare does it better and cheaper than America, and France is rated number one, while America, the world's richest nation, ranks 37th. We also rank about 22nd on infant mortality, which is pathetic. America spends about 17% of its GDP on healthcare, where France is around 11% but covers *everyone*. Imagine if America had a mandate for everyone to pay in, we'd have a large pool of money to cover the sick, and reduce our overall costs. There would also be less administrative overhead because there would be fewer appeals for rescinded coverage, denied procedures, less back and forth between doctors and insurance companies, etc. A lot of effort and money from insurance companies goes into denials and rescission of benefits. The problem is not America's medical technology, but access. We cannot cover everyone if everyone doesn't pay in. With a for-profit system (as it is now), insurance companies simply cherry-pick the healthiest people and either refuse to cover the rest, or rescind coverage for pre-existing conditions. Imagine an auto-insurer refusing coverage for car-insurance because you plan to drive, which puts you at risk. Speaking of car-insurance, it is illegal in most states to drive on any public road without car insurance. There is a mandate to pay into the system so that those who get in accidents can be covered. The same principle should apply with healthcare. It's pathetic and sad that Americans have to go broke because of something they often cannot control. Now, some Americans do have lifestyles which don't promote health, but just as in other countries like the U.K., we can have doctors receive bonuses for getting smokers to quit, as one example of preventive care. But, for preventive care to work, people actually have to have the confidence to visit a doctor without the fear of going broke in the process. America promises the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and in the spirit of this, it makes sense to look after the well-being of all Americans by having us all contribute to a health fund. Having health-care tied to a job is asinine, especially when the economy takes a downturn and people lose their jobs en masse (as I did). In America, if you lose a job with healthcare, you lose income and health-insurance in one fell swoop. Health insurance should be tied to the individual, not a job (and many jobs in America don't even offer coverage). In addition, prices for health services can cost up to four-times what it costs for the insured, because insurance companies negotiate down pricing, but nobody is doing this for those who may need health services but are uninsured, assuming they can even get insurance if there's a pre-existing condition. The for-profit system currently is a scam, verging on criminal. Insurance companies in other countries which offer Universal healthcare do exist, but they simply receive the government-guaranteed base-package that comes with the individual. If the individual is not happy with one company, he/she can switch companies and bring his government-backed funds elsewhere (such as in Germany, where citizens have private, not-for-profit insurance their entire lives). This breeds competition and value-added benefits from insurance companies and gives individuals the power they need to get proper service. Healthcare will happen, but we have to get people to realize that America already has a sloppy array of government-run services....it just needs to be cleaned-up, reformed, consolidated and removed from the for-profit vultures who cherry-pick the healthy and leave the sick out in the cold to die (sometimes, literally). The current system is broken, corrupt, insanely unfair, bad for the country, more expensive than any other healthcare system and should not be the behavior of a first-world egalitarian society and richest nation on Earth.

You mean government-run Medicare, which is more efficient than private healthcare, has far less overhead and was the brainchild of a Canadian socialist? Or, maybe you're referring to the government-run healthcare which covers all government employees (including politicians against healthcare), active military and veterans as well as prisoners and the indigent? That government-run healthcare? Seems there's a lot of government-run healthcare, except for the 50 million Americans who can't get or don't have insurance. Check out the other countries which have healthcare for everyone, and do it much cheaper than the 16% of its GDP that America spends. Here's the list: Every other first-world nation on the planet. Cheers,

What changed from working to non-working condition? Which version of SignCut are you using? SignCut Productivity Pro is the one I use. What you might do is try a different cutting software and see if your cutter is still listening to your computer. Make sure your cables are plugging in and that the USB didn't come off the back of the computer. If your cutter works with different software, I'd take not of your settings and re-install SignCut, but make sure you have the latest software too. Good luck!

Adorable kids Ash, thanks for sharing.

I would choose, 'Absolute Airbrush and Vinyl'.

Not answering email or customer inquiry is bad form, and a little communication goes a long way.

Again, I agree 100%. Shipping costs are already unfair to lower-volume American sellers, and yes, eBay takes a portion of something you can't profit on if you're reasonable and fair with shipping. EBay is actually making the problem worse trying to profit off of shipping. It's crazy. I'm not happy about this change either. Shipping should be left alone. eBay already gets a cut of our Final Value without the new shipping profit they're implementing.