Well, there are, but let's start with the word most. How much? 51% would be most. Regardless of the actual number, what about those not included in most?
But try some reading here:
Health Savings Accounts
Health Savings Accounts
Single-Payer FAQ | Physicians for a National Health Program
HSA's are racist, sexist, "for the wealthy", yada yada yada because they require people to pay more out of pocket.
That's essentially what those links said.
But to the point, I'm all for getting rid of the income tax, so we don't need HSA's to shelter otherwise taxable money.
It's also funny how you don't see the ethical and biased issues with "Doctors for single payer."
That is simply not true. There is nothing inherent in a single payer system that would prevent it. Do some research and you'll see I'm right.
Except that those who have proposed such a bill, do not allow those who do not want it, to opt out of both services and taxes.
It has been mandated for all to join, in the bills proposed.
Actually, that's what you have now. The elite get much better care than workers and poor do. And frankly, if you have enough problems, and you wage is low enough, routine care can be costly. My wife's meds alone with insurance runs a few hundred dollars a month. Without insurance, we'd be nearing a couple a thousand. For working folk, that might as well be millions.
No, you really don't see the problem.
Bullcrap, that is absolute bullcrap.
You're making things up and I'm sick of it.
The "elite" get better care, while the lowly worker gets nothing is absolutely, total garbage.
Your personal situation is not an excuse, it's just adds to personal bias.
It is not proof that a less regulated, less state based system would lower prices by reducing consumption on unnecessary medical treatments.
I'm just fine with UHC for those with inborn and very expensive medical situations.
You know, the people who really need help.
