Why can't US cities/states provide low-cost health coverage?
Cities can finance public options with excise taxes + and include an extremely low individual premium for the insured.
-Maybe citizens of some states like Vermont and Massachusetts and Rhode Island and California and Illinois would be kind enough to subsidize insurance for the uninsured American citizens so the "OPPORTUNITY" of very poor people to prosper in America does not depent on the person not getting sick, at which point bankruptcy is unavoidable.
I would of course prefer a nationwide option for healthcare so NOBODY EVER has to file bankruptcy due to cancer or heart surgery, but it's not happening in this country because people will not even contribute to the health of their own people. Wealth is EVERYTHING in America. Freedom is just a make-believe word because without wealth, you can't exercise any of it.
Basically not even cancer is more important than wealth, that's a free country, that's a democracy, that's worth dying for.
Americans would come to terms with this if we had a draft and saw we were forced to fight for a system that does not provide health for its own people. to keep us quiet in the meantime, the army has been an all-volunteer army. and those volunteers may be mad, but they are dying in battle before they can speak.
Instead we've wasted our volunteers, 3,000 of them, who lost their democratic voice in roadside bombs and grenades 
in a war for oil to enrich the very same people who, unlike the soldiers willing to die for their country, the rich oil contractors would not spare a penny to save their own fellow citizens from bankruptcy due to a brain tumor or cancer,
Unbelievable?
Why can't US cities/states provide low-cost health coverage?
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Amanda Hollis and Michael Martin, Nora Whitworth. Nora Whitworth said: http://bit.ly/g8QoGM massachusetts bankruptcy
Why cant US cities/states provide low-cost health coverage? [...]