This is a comment to a Huffington Post article titled, "Conservativism, Compassion, and Cruelty: A Response to David Brooks."
Why do corporations continue to lobby against progressives and universal health care? You would think it would be in their interest to support health care that is not paid for with company provided health insurance. Don't they have to compete against companies who don't have those costs?
Maybe it is really corporations dominated by outside (foreign) interests that are against American universal health care.
If more than half the town voluntarily helped pay for one person's medical bills, does that say something about universal health care?
What would have happened if it was not Ruthie Leming? If it was someone who was not as well liked or someone who worked in a less visible profession, would the town have responded in the same way? Should one's popularity make a difference in the amount of help given for medical expenses?
No comments:
Post a Comment