Universal Health Care Bill sign now

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN THIS IS NOT TO BE TAKEN LIGHTLY. This is a very serious problem in America and we as a people need to find a way (just like other countries have) to make this work!


This petition is to help the ill. I have realized a very disturbing issue that needs to be dealt with on even a national level. If anyone was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis, Fibromyalsia, Gout, ALS/Lou Gehrigs Disease, Parkinson's and other autoimmune diseases such as these, you are out of luck when it come to purchasing more life insurance, long term care insurance (in case you need to be cared for in a nursing home) and other forms of insurance that would pertain to your life. Once you were diagnosed with such diseases your RIGHTS were striped from you.

We are no longer afforded the same rights as a much healthier person, despite the fact that most of us can and do try to live a rather normal life or as normal as we can. Despite the fact that most of us are on SSDI and still try to maintain some kind of normalcy in life, there are no longer any rights for us when it comes to insurances that could help our loved ones. I am proposing that something be done about this and I plan try to pass a bill that will not only help those of us in this position, but can be affordable as well.

I don't like the fact that once you are diagnosed with a disease, you are automatically excluded from the real world when it comes to the insurance that you need. Insurance that can and would help your family members should you need a nursing home (Long Term Care Insurance), or should you pass on (Extra Life Insurance). These are just examples. Many of you may be just like me and be very young still. I am only 37 and I didn't have nearly enough time to save that extra money or take out extra insurance. Now that I have Multiple Sclerosis, I am uninsurable.

It is known that the reason for this is because it is not profitable for the insurance companies. They base all of this on your age, and your health, and in the end the only thing that is cared about is the money that apparently they would lose. So, I can only imagine just how many people that is in this world that are reading this right now and are in my position. I say this I have the money, I pay you for a service to protect me, and I expect to be able to utilize such services that could be rendered to me. As long as I am alive and can the premiums there shouldnt be a problem, but there is.


The Bill that I will try to pass is going to be UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. This is already working in other countries. There would have to be a lot of give and take on our part, but if we pull together I am certain that we can and will prevail and help millions of people in our shoes right now. Below are quotes from other websites explaining Universal Health Care. It will show the good and the bad points. But if we look at the big picture, those of us who fall into this category will understand that this could very well work and it could be very affordable with enough effort and votes.

http://www.univhc.com/ States the following: "News Release- March 28th, 2007

Questions & Answers

I read that Universal Health Care is insolvent. Is that true?

No. The company is not insolvent. The ANY, ANY, ANY plan is not insolvent. Universal Health Care is financially strong and secure. On March 23, the State of Florida Office of Insurance Regulation improperly sent out a press release and letter stating incorrect information. One of our major competitors improperly forwarded and publicized this misinformation. The State has since confirmed our solvency and the competitor has issued a retraction.

What is the status of Universal Health Cares regulatory issues with the State of Florida?

A Leon County Circuit Court Judge granted an extension to Universal Health Care to meet the states regulatory requirements. The state has been directed to give Universal Health Care 60 days to meet the requirements, which are based on disputable calculations.

How does this impact members health insurance and claims payments?

For members of Medicare Masterpiece, Masterpiece Plus and other HMO/PPO plans, there is no impact. The regulatory issues do not involve those plans.

For members of the popular ANY, ANY, ANY plan, Universal Health Care continues to pay and process claims in a timely manner. Regardless of the outcome of the regulatory issues, members will not lose their health insurance. Even in the unlikely event of receivership, there will be no gap in insurance coverage, and members will be given an opportunity to enroll in a similar plan.

What should members do? Nothing. Members will continue to receive the benefits of their plans. Even in the unlikely event of receivership, members would be given ample opportunity to enroll in a different plan.

Why hasnt Universal Health Care resolved the regulatory issues by now?

We believe the specific state regulation was not intended for and does not apply to a federally funded insurance plan like the ANY, ANY, ANY plan. Nevertheless, we continue to work closely with state officials and private investors. We have multiple options available to us to meet the state requirements. The judges extension allows us time to pursue the options that are best for our company and our members. We believe the ANY, ANY, ANY plan is a good plan for senior citizens and we intend to fight for the right to continue to provide seniors with exceptional value and attractive, innovative benefits.

Where can I get more information?

We hope these questions and answers have provided you with important information. If you are a member and have specific questions about your ANY, ANY, ANY plan, please call our Orlando call center at 1-866-214-7606.

Media Contact: Bob O'Malley: (407) 470-0652"

http://personalinsure.about.com/cs/healthinsurance1/a/aa060903a.htm States the following of Universal Health Care: "Getting the U.S. United on Health Care - A National Health Care Plan
Universal Health Care Gains Popularity
Universal health care gained popularity with former President Bill Clinton. Although President Clinton's proposal is looked at as a large failure, it did start the universal health care ball rolling and got many in America thinking about a united health care plan. Ever since President Clinton's proposal, the debate on a united and universal health care system for the U.S.A. has continued to be weaved into election topics as a proposed cure to the United States health care crisis, which estimates have said leaves 41-50 million people in America without health insurance.

What is it?
Universal health care or also commonly known as a singe-payer system, united health care system, or national health care, would be similar to the current U.S. Medicaid health care program for low-income peoples but would apply to all citizens of the U.S. regardless of ability to pay.

Who else does this?
Many countries have a united or national health care system, and all industrialized countries except for the U.S., have some sort of single-payer universal health care system. Most notably Canada and the UK have coverage under this type of united health care.

Sounds great! How come we don't have a national health care system in the U.S.?
There is no right formula for a united universal or national health care system. All countries have different ways of accomplishing the task of insuring every citizen in their country. How to accomplish a national health care single-payer system in America and if it would be better and more cost-effective than our current system are the main debate areas for universal or national health care in the U.S. There are many advantages and disadvantages to a single-payer health care system in the U.S.

Every citizen would be covered under a national united health care system and administrative costs could be drastically reduced. According to the article Make Healthcare a Right. It's Cheaper! By John R. Battista, M.D. and Justine A. McCabe, Ph.D., studies have shown that with a publicly administered system health care costs would have been reduced in Connecticut by two billion dollars in 1999 by the reduction of administrative costs along with other different medical buying techniques such as buying medications in bulk.

Income taxes would increase and private insurance companies may be put out of the health care administrative business. Not to mention many Americans are worried it is just another route to socialism so therefore taking away private health care is un-American.

Most would not argue that basic health care should be an available human right to all Americans and most would also agree that our current system is not working and we should all get united on health care in the U.S. The universal national health care debate will be with our society for an inevitable amount of time, or at least until healthcare is available to more Americans, so expect this to be a topic for politicians in many future elections."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care States the following: "Universal health care is a state in which all residents of a geographic or political entity have access to health care by means of provision of health insurance or direct provision of health care.[1]

Universal health care is not tied to any particular health care system, though it is the motivation for the socialized medicine practiced in countries such as Italy[2] and the United Kingdom. Universal health care does not require direct provision of health care and related services by government, although in many countries with universal health care government plays a large direct role.

Types of universal health care
Universal health care is a broad concept and has been implemented in several ways. The common denominator for them all is that every resident of a geographic area such as a country is mandated to have health insurance. In market-based systems, as used in part by the USA, the mandate is coupled with a private insurance market. In government the mandate is coupled with a government agency that pays for a wide range of health benefits. The government monopoly is paid for with taxes, most commonly on payroll, a year end tax income tax calculation, or from general government revenues.

The variety of ways that a country can fund health care can be highlighted by the example of Canada. Prior to the Universal health care system, individuals paid out of pocket. Later the Canadian government imposed monthly or yearly insurance type fees per family or individual. Recently the government eliminated the fee structure in favor of a strictly tax based funding system. Today Canada has re-introduced and implemented added health insurance tax through annual income tax system form.

There are no universal health care systems that cover all thinkable health services. The Health Care System in Canada is a case in point. It is socialized in the relevant aspect of funding. This makes the Canadian system a single payer system. Most health services are provided by private enterprises which act as contractors, billing the government for patient care. [3]

Single-payer health care
Main article: single-payer health care
Single-payer health care is a system whereby one party, usually the government, pays for the health care of everyone. In practice this means that the government collects taxes from the public, businesses, etc., creates an entity to administer the supply of health care and then pays health care professionals. While this replaces competing health insurance companies, some claim that it tends to create a large government bureaucracy.[citation needed]While others, such as Harry Wachtel (see below) estimate a single payer universal healthcare system will actually save money through reduced bureaucratic administration costs.

Hybrid health care
Universal health care can be implemented without having the government pay for it in full, as in single-payer health care. Hybrid health care models emerged from efforts to reconcile the drive for expanded access and the drive against rising health care prices. This model is geared towards getting past the dichotomies that have stymied universal health care efforts, such as whether the state or federal governments should take the lead, whether the primary jurisdiction for negotiating health care should be at the market or government level and whether health care is more of an individual or societal responsibility. There are no examples of single payer systems that have successfully converted into a hybrid model, although there are examples of countries that have moved from private insurance to a hybrid model, one example is Germany.

Private universal health care
No such system currently exists, although the reform bill in Massachusetts has characteristics of a private universal model. Advocates of the free market define a private universal health care system as one in which health care would be affordable to all, and anyone who wanted to buy health care could do so in the free market. Some of these free-market health care systems would provide vouchers to those who couldn't afford to pay. Others would not involve any wealth redistribution.

If a government subsidizes health care, the free market will never be able to develop a private universal health care system, advocates argue, claiming this is why no such system has ever existed.

Bill Frist argued in the New England Journal of Medicine[citation needed] that the free market will keep costs down, because individuals who have to pay for their own health care will make wiser decisions and not spend money on unneeded or inefficient care. A deregulated free market, Frist argues, will also encourage efficiency and innovation.

Economics of medical insurance
Medical (health) insurance is subject to the well-known economic problem of adverse selection which may also be referred to as a market failure. Adverse selection in insurance markets occurs because those providing insurance have limited information with which to estimate the risks their clients wish to insure against. In simple terms, those with poor health will apply for insurance, raising the cost of providing insurance; those with good health will find the cost of insurance too expensive, raising costs further. In practical terms, adverse selection means that private insurers are economically incentives to spend substantial sums on 'weeding out' bad risks in advance by providing medical insurance only to the most healthy.

Among the potential solutions posited by economists are forms of universal health insurance, such as requiring all citizens to purchase insurance, limiting the ability of insurance companies to deny insurance to individuals or vary price between individuals. Compulsory universal health insurance is a common thread, although there is no requirement that the insurance or medical services be provided by government.[4] , [5]

Funding of universal health care systems
Most European systems are financed through a mix of public and private contributions. [6] The majority of universal health care systems are funded primarily by tax revenue (e.g. Portugal [6]). Some nations, such as Germany, France [7] and Japan [8] employ a multi-payer system in which health care is funded by private and public contributions.

"Single-payer" describes a type of financing system in which a single entity, typically a government-run organization, acts as the administrator (or "payer") to collect all health care fees, and pay out all health care costs. [9] Some advocates of universal health care assert that single-payer systems save money that could be used directly towards health care by reducing administrative waste. [9]

Canadians pay $2,163 per capita versus $4,887 U.S. in 2001, according to the Los Angeles Times. According to Dr. Stephen Bezruchka, a senior lecturer in the School of Public Health at the University of Washington in Seattle, Canadians do better by every health care measure. According to a World Health Organization report published in 2003, life expectancy at birth in Canada is 79.8 years, versus 77.3 in the U.S. [10].

A distinction is also made between municipal and national healthcare funding. For example, one model is that the bulk of the healthcare is funded by the municipality, specialty healthcare is provided and possibly funded by a larger entity, such as a municipal co-operation board or the state, and the medications are paid by a state agency.

Countries with universal health care
Argentina,[11] Australia,[7][11] Austria,[7] Belgium,[7] Brazil,[7] Canada,[7] Cuba,[7] Denmark,[7] Finland,[7] France,[7][11] Germany,[7] Greece,[11][12] Ireland,[13] Israel,[14] Italy,[11][15] Japan,[7] The Netherlands,[7] New Zealand,[7] Norway,[7], Poland, Portugal,[6] Russia,[11] Saudi Arabia,[11] Seychelles,[16] South Korea[11] Spain,[7] Sri Lanka,[17] Sweden,[7] The Republic of China (Taiwan),[7] and the United Kingdom[7][11] are among many countries that have various types of universal health care systems. Mexico, [11] South Africa, [7] [11] and Thailand [18] are among those nations attempting to implement universal health care systems.

Health Care in the United States
In the United States, certain publicly funded health care programs help to provide for the elderly, disabled, military service families and veterans, and the poor[19] and federal law ensures public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay;[20] however, a system of universal health care has not been implemented. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is attempting to implement a near-universal health care system by mandating that residents purchase health insurance by July 1, 2007.[21] California, Maine, Pennsylvania, and Vermont also are attempting universal systems.[22]

Some government health care systems allow private practitioners to provide services, and some do not. In the U.K., doctors are allowed to provide services outside the government system. In Canada, some services are permitted and some are not. The Supreme Court of Quebec ruled, in Chaoulli v. Quebec, that private services must be allowed to compete with the public program.[5]

However, those who are proponents of implementing a universal healthcare system in the United States point out the fact that there are many flaws in the reasoning used against having such a system. Among these flaws, the one that stands out is the fact that the USA has a lower life expectancy than virtually all other countries in a similar economic class, including those with national healthcare systems, such as Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Sweden.[23] Also, infant mortality rates remain higher in the United States as well, despite declines in recent decades, and are in fact higher than the average of the European Union; however, this fails to take into effect that premature births are not counted as live births in most EU nations, potentially resulting in this disparity. -see table [24]

Current estimates put US healthcare spending at approximately 15\% of GDP, which is the highest in the world.[25] Despite this, only an estimated 85\% of citizens have some form of health insurance coverage, either through their employer or purchased individually.[26] [27]

Employers that do provide insurance, on average, spend between 4.6 and 8.7\% of their payroll in health insurance premiums. This, while expensive, is a lower percentage than France, where employers must pay a sum of 14\% of their payroll for health insurance.

Healthcare during Times of Disaster
Although the United States Healthcare system is a complex system of public and private hospitals, states have created trauma systems pertaining to their state. In these trauma systems, there are protocols in place for disasters and mass casualty events. Most if not all hospitals are licensed for more beds than they typically staff and most hospitals typically operate between 70-85\% of capacity in case of an incident; in case of disasters, these beds are staffed for disasters such as with Oklahoma University Medical Center in Oklahoma City after the 1995 bombings there, St. Vincent, Bellevue, and New York Presbyterian-Weill Cornell Hospitals after the 9-11 attacks, Grady Memorial Hospital after the 1996 Olympic Park Bombing, and LAC-USC, Cedars-Sinai, and LAC-Harbor-UCLA Hospitals among many others after the 1994 Northridge easrthquake. In case of MCI, disasters, accidents, etc. from 1-1000+ patients, there are plans in place which agencies respond in given areas, which hospitals will recieve patients, and what other additional resources will need to be called. In major US cicites, a regional EMS command has protocols in place if such an incident occurrs. [28]

The primary issue in healthcare during disasters is "surge capacity" - which is the ability to take on a surge of patients caused by a disaster. Licensed beds in many US facilities are often opened up by calling in staff and holding staff back on overtime.In Israel entire hospital wards can be stocked and left empty to serve as mass casualty surge capacity, and disaster protocols can be rapidly implemented.

Some non-American physicians who specialize in mass casualty incident healthcare and have practiced in the United States have called the US disaster medicine system at the hospital level "discombobulated" because of the unwieldy administrative complexity intrinsic to it. *However, this should be looked into as many foreign EMS and trauma systems look at the US as a model system in Emergency care. And during a disaster event, insurance coverage has no bearing on who receives treatment first (indeed healthcare providers in a disaster often have no time to look into insurance issues at all) - all treatment decisions are based exclusively on prioritizing patients in terms of the severity of their medical condition.

[edit] Universal health care politics
Main article: Health care politics
There are many common arguments for and against universal health care. Those in favor of universal health care often point out that it would provide health care to the people who currently do not have it. Opponents of universal health care often argue that universal healthcare will require higher taxes and a great likelihood of poorly performing healthcare facilities and physicians. [29] These opponents also claim that the absence of a market mechanism may slow innovation in treatment and research, and leads to rationing of care through waiting lists.[30] Both sides of the political spectrum have also looked to more philosophical arguments, debating whether or not people have a fundamental right to have health care provided to them by their government.[citation needed]

Other objections come from physicians, since universal health care almost always lowers wages leading to a shortage of doctors. A statistical comparison shows that it is not universal health care that leads to a doctor shortage, but the payment system to doctors that causes a doctors shortage. In Italy,[31] doctors are paid a fee per patient per year, a per capita salary, and Italy does not have a doctor shortage but has one of the highest doctor per patient ration, 5.8 doctors per 1,000 patients. In Italy though, it should be noted that most physicians subsequently have very limited hours; many only maintaining patient hours 2 days per week. Canada, whose universal health care system pays its doctors a "fee per visit", creates a real market condition, where doctors' salaries are protected, and even increased, by decreasing the supply of doctors. Canada has a low doctor per patient ration of 2.1 doctors per 1,000 patients. A comparative analysis shows that a salaried doctor system, while not perfect, results in more doctors; however, they work substantially fewer hours, while the fee per visit system creates economic pressures to reduce the number of doctors, who subsequently work more hours.

The issue of quality control is an important aspect of any system, and in Canada, the self regulation of the health industry by the doctors union, the Canadian Medical Association, and its self regulatory wing, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario shows that most complaints are swept under the rug, (Toronto Star reports) [32] and very few complaints sent to quality control for study.

Support for universal health care
Common arguments waged from supporters of universal health care systems are:

Health care is a right [33][34] or entitlement.[35]
Ensuring the health of all citizens benefits a nation economically.[36]
Provides coverage to all citizens regardless of ability to pay.[37]
Health care is increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals.[37]
Universal health care would provide for uninsured adults who may forego treatment needed for chronic health conditions.[38]
Providing access to medical treatment to those who cannot afford it themselves reduces the severity of epidemics by reducing the number of disease carriers.
Reduces wastefulness and inefficiencies in the delivery of health care.[37]
Aligns incentives for investment in long term health-care productivity, preventive care, and better management of chronic conditions.[39]
Encourages patients to seek preventive care enabling problems to be detected and treated earlier.[37]
A centralized national database makes diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors.[37]
Medical professionals can concentrate on treating patients rather than on administrative duties.[37]
Profit-driven care leads to more deaths[40] and is more expensive.[41]
Universal health care can act as a subsidy to business, at no cost to the business. The Big Three of U.S. car manufacturers cite health-care provision as a reason for their ongoing financial travails. The cost of health insurance to U.S. car manufacturers adds between USD 900 and USD 1,400 to each car made in the U.S.A.[42]
The profit motive adversely affects the cost and quality of health care.[43]

Opposition to universal health care
Common arguments waged from opponents of universal health care systems are:

Health care is not a right.[44][45][46]
Providing health care is not the responsibility of government.[47]
Increased waiting times, which can result in unnecessary deaths (though this must apply to non-emergency situations since there are no wait times for emergency cases in industrialized countries with universal healthcare).[44][48]
Poorer quality of care.[44][37]
Unequal access and health disparities still exist in universal health care systems.[44]
Government agencies are less efficient due to bureaucracy.[37][44] Administrative duties, by doctors, are the result of medical centralization and over-regulation, and are not natural to the profession. In fact, before heavy regulation of the health care and insurance industries, doctor visits to the elderly, and free care, or low cost care to impoverished patients was common; governments regulated this form of charity out of existence.[49] Universal health care plans will add more inefficiency to the medical system because of more bureaucratic oversight and more paperwork, which will lead to less doctor patient visits (though this hasn't been the experience in places such as Canada, where paperwork requirements are much less complicated per patient visit).[50]
Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity lead to greater cost control and effectiveness.[37]
Uninsured citizens can sometimes still receive emergency care from alternative sources such as nonprofits and government-run hospitals.[37]
Government-mandated procedures reduce doctor flexibility.[37]
Healthy people who take care of themselves have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc. [37]
Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay dissuades many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.[37]
Causes loss of insurance industry jobs and other business closures in the private sector.[37]
Eliminates a right to privacy between doctors and patients as governments demand power to oversee health of citizens.[51]
Empirical evidence on single payer insurance programs demonstrates that the cost exceeds the expectations of advocates.[52]
Governments, such as Canada, have outlawed medical care if the service is paid for by private individual funds. This results as governments attempt to control costs by gaining or enforcing monopsony power.[53]"



Sign The Petition

Sign with Facebook

If you already have an account please sign in, otherwise register an account for free then sign the petition filling the fields below.
Email and the password will be your account data, you will be able to sign other petitions after logging in.

Privacy in the search engines? You can use a nickname:

Attention, the email address you supply must be valid in order to validate the signature, otherwise it will be deleted.

I confirm registration and I agree to Usage and Limitations of Services

I confirm that I have read the Privacy Policy

I agree to the Personal Data Processing


Who signed this petition saw these petitions too:

Sign The Petition

Sign with Facebook

If you already have an account please sign in


I confirm registration and I agree to Usage and Limitations of Services

I confirm that I have read the Privacy Policy

I agree to the Personal Data Processing

50 / 100

Latest Signatures

  • 05 December 201550. Marty L
    I think that it is about time that our Legislation needs to make a lot of changes in our Health Care when it comes to MS and other Diseases. Instead of wasting Billions of dollars on an arena or a new bridge. Address; Zip Code 906 Sinclair St. #4 Fairdal
  • 03 November 201549. Shirley J
    This is unavoidable - ti's just a matter of when. Address; Zip Code 429 Woodland Circle, Lynchburg, VA 24502 Full Name Shirley James Political Party Independent
  • 27 October 201548. Jennifer T
    I support this petition
  • 05 February 201547. Bryan Ngriffinj
    I am a type 1 diabetic on insulin with no health insurance, because Imy health problem is a pre-existing condition. Address; Zip Code 6916 Cottage Circle; 44039-2921 USA Full Name Bryan Nelson Griffin Junior Political Party INDEPENDENT
  • 06 January 201546. M Adelaineg
    I support this petition
  • 30 August 201445. Danielle C
    I support this petition
  • 01 August 201444. Mary D
    I support this petition
  • 06 May 201443. John L
    Charing for Healthcare is MORALLY UNETHICAL and MAKES US A CRUEL SOCIETY. Address; Zip Code 5011 Buckskin pass, 78745 Full Name John Langston Political Party Democratic
  • 09 March 201442. Brandon R
    I support this petition
  • 29 July 201341. Michael P
    I support this petition
  • 16 July 201340. Janice Rg
    I support this petition
  • 03 July 201339. Glen Savage
    Our country needs to wise up... Address; Zip Code 361 Arroyo Grande Henderson, NV 89014 Full Name Glen Araki
  • 30 March 201338. Sonya L
    I support this petition
  • 24 September 201237. Iva Stein
    I support this petition
  • 01 September 201236. Maryella W
    I support this petition
  • 22 August 201235. Nathan K
    We need this now, the longer we wait the more damage is done. Address; Zip Code Rd 108 cutler 39069 Full Name Nathan Don Kenyon Political Party Democrat
  • 10 July 201234. Scott M
    I support this petition
  • 27 April 201233. Jennifer S
    I support this petition
  • 21 March 201232. Jack M
    What can I say that hasn't already been drilled at congress several times? Just make it happen already. The country really needs this. Address; Zip Code 7116 Rosehill Dr Apt D, Indianapolis, IN 46260 Full Name Jack Joseph Montalto Jr Political Party NA
  • 29 January 201231. Lucas A
    I support this petition
  • 22 January 201230. Debra B
    В Address; Zip Code 18655 Full Name debra e belanger Political Party В
  • 28 December 201129. Keri L
    I support this petition
  • 19 December 201128. Tom K
    I support this petition
  • 17 September 201127. Kathy M
  • 19 July 201126. Alan L
    I support this petition
  • 16 May 201125. Betty H
    It's time to do something!! Address; Zip Code 54751 Full Name Betty A. Hawkins Political Party Democrat
  • 09 April 201124. Mary G
    I support this petition

browse all the signatures


Marcie CareyBy:
International PolicyIn:
Petition target:
U.S. Congress, Federal Government, And State Governments


No tags


Invite friends from your address book

Embed Codes

direct link

link for html

link for forum without title

link for forum with title