Of course I did.

So what you are saying is that since something horrible and catostrophic happened to someone you know, you think other people should be taxed to make sure that everyone's life goes more smoothly.

That's theft. It's you voting to take money from other people and give it to those whom you think "deserve" it more than those who earn it.

I'm just as upset as you are when things go bad, but I don't believe in hurting other people just to make everyone suffer equally.

The problem with your logic baedric is that not everyone grows up with enough in a good area of society....this is NO fault of their own. Just like on the other hand people who do have enough money from the get go are NOT somehow better people more deserving of money and proper medical care.

Oh , I see now! That means they have the right to take money they didn't earn, and that will make everything better.

And so they should have their money taken away from them. Hey... it just makes sense!

People who earn their money don't deserve it and people who don't earn it - do. How could I be so blind?

Oh please thats not remotely what I said. Have fun trying to convince people of your completely out of place ideals...

No, that's what you said will result in. It's called the Law of Unintended Consequences and it's unavoidable.

Where are you going to get the money to help people who don't have money if you don't take it from people who make money?

Don't just get mad and ignore the point, think about it. There is a reason why Socialism needs a Tyranny to keep going.

I think the real question is "Is health care something that should be provided for by taxation for the public good in the same sense as essential services such as roads and highways, public schools, defense, etc.?"

That is the real question, and of course my answer is no. Because healthcare is a personal thing between me and my doctor, and should remain that way. It is a private benefit, not a general one, and should not be financed by the general population. A road is used in common by everyone, a State School (ignoring for the monemt my objection to public schools) can be used by everyone, stitches on my leg are a benefit to me and me only.

I know that you will point out that if I don't have the government pay for the stitches, I will just end up at the emergency room and charge the government even more, but since I am against that too, I reject it as a counter argument. Just because some people make bad decisions does not mean we should tax others to encourage the same behavior and call it the "public good".

There is also the cases we see in England and France which should scare you pantless. You see, if the Government gives you something, the Government can take it away. There are many cases of people who were denied public health care because they did not follow the State guidelines for health and good citizenship. This is a standard thing in China, but it is realtively new for Europe.

Your mistake here is in thinking that the Police are here to keep you safe, you personally. They are not.

They are here to enforce laws. You are expected to protect yourself. That's why the second thing mentioned in the Bill of Rights is the right of the people to bear arms. So you can protect yourself and when the police come a few hours later, they will decide if you did it legally.

No, I never did. I mean I have heard of the concept, it's popular in many countries just before they suspended elections and descended into Totalitarianism. So as far as "consider it" no, I never did that.

There is a way to change our Constitution to reflect new information and technology and historic events, and it's not by "reinterpreting" it. It's by making an amendment. That way everybody gets a chance to help decide, not just a few old white men in smoke filled rooms.

If you think the Government of the US should have Tax funded health care (beyond the huge system we already have for any poor person) then propose, work for and vote on a change to the Constitution to allow them to have that personal and intrusive power over the life of your body. Just remember the lesson that State schools learned, if you take Federal Funds you have to do it the Federal Way, meaning you must follow the USDA pyramid diet or they might "Ration" your health care.

You'll be hard-pressed to find examples where regulation is designed with the interest of the populace in mind. Corporate interests (i.e. those who pay campaign contributions) are usually the recipients of regulation, not the targets. Look at the auto industry for example, where heavy regulation keeps competitors out of the market.

You'll find it's even harder to find an example of regulation with noble intentions that actually works well. Unintended consequences of market distortions are inevitable.

Finally I think we can all agree the US health care system is anything but free enterprise.

You actually have a relationship with your doctor? Most of us have a relationship, albeit an unpleasant one, with our HMOs or PPOs.



The current system is a public menace. It's going to bankrupt the private sector to pay for it.



Do you think the people are going to let the government assume the role of behavior police? After all, Hillary conceded the Democratic primary. That's what people think about that idea.

There are horrible things that Aetna and Prudential have done too and you can't even sue them because they are protected under ERISA, a stupid federal law passed to protect labor union retirement funds. Why is our insurance law coming from an Act that was supposed to protect us from people like Jimmy Hoffa? It's stupid and make us look stupid in the eyes of the rest of the world. We need to trash the whole thing and start over.

If James Madison had had an inkling about ERISA, he would have included health care in the Constitution.

If government was in charge of health care TODAY, or even 5, 10 or 15 years ago, what do you think would happen to those of us who ignored our govmt appointed doctor's recommendations to follow a low fat diet, be sure to get plenty of whole grains, to replace red meat with soy and get plenty of exercise?

What's to stop the insurance companies from doing the same?

This is a valid concern and one of the reasons why I don't talk about my diet to my doctor. I just pay the usual lip service, yada, yada, yada, OK. *shrug*

I'm sure a big thick layer of Government bureaucracy will fix that.

Yes, I do have a relationship with my doctor. But that's because I won't have it any other way. I went through three local Dr.s before I settled with her and it's good that she was there, because there are only four in town.

In Florida I made the mistake of working with a "Physician's Group" and I never knew from visit to visit who would be seeing me and they didn't know or care about me. I finally fired them and found a doctor who had their own office and paid extra to go there. Remember, I'm poor, but my ideology requires me to make sacrifices.

I believe if you are not willing hire those who do it right... well, that sentence shouldn't need finishing.

Anyone else care to try and answer that question of mine?

Honestly, I don't think anything would happen. I'm a lot more afraid of insurance companies than the government. We can vote people out of office. You can't do a damn thing about an insurance company.