The "country" doesn't "tie" health care to an employer. Private insurance is offered by some employers as a benefit. The US is one of the few Western countries where private insurance is actually legal.
So your single anecdotal evidence, which is little more than a general observation that you've "seen a difference in the seasons", is supposed to be credible from an objective, scientific standpoint?
And the question isn't whether the climate is changing, it is always changing. The question is how much, how fast, and why.
The parent didn't make a point of saying "This is true because worldnetdaily says so". However, the responder claimed the source was not trustworthy ("worldnutdaily"), without addressing the core argument, so that is the true ad hominem. If someone criticizes your source, the correct course of action is to declare ad hominem and defend your source.
Most people exchange what they produce for money, which is almost universally exchangeable for something else of value without carrying the risk of a non-cash type of asset. The parent's point is that in a free market people exchange their work for something of value which is owned and controlled by them. People care more about that which they own than that which they do not own.
And most Fortune 500 companies do just fine in good times and bad. If you are thinking of that the banks have been mis-managed lately, think again. The banks adapted high-risk, high-return strategies because there was an implicit guarantee that the Feds would bail them out. Guess what? The Feds bailed them out. The banks would likely not have engaged in such risky behavior without the meddling of the Federal government through institutions like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and insipidly poor oversight by the SEC and Congress.
Did they factor in the quality of life loss from working around stinky, sweaty Englishmen all day?