[NTHockey]

>>In all seriousness, how do you purpose providing health care to a signifcant minority of the population that is too stupid, lazy, arrogant, etc. to participate in a free market system? How to you get these people who insist on immediate gratification to give up their big screen TV sets, endless array of the latest gadgets, $500 per month cell phone and cable tv habits, and $200 sneakers, in exchange for a free market health care policy?<<

You don’t. I know that sounds cold and heartless, but if they prefer cell phones, cable TV and $200 sneakers rather than health insurance, let them. But don’t expect the rest of us to pay for them.

[MrB]

What it comes down to is that the taker class wants the maker class to provide for all their needs
so that they can spend any income they have on their wants.

[Labyrinthos]

You don’t. I know that sounds cold and heartless, but if they prefer cell phones, cable TV and $200 sneakers rather than health insurance, let them. But don’t expect the rest of us to pay for them.

In theory, I agree with you, but then there's reality: What do you do when they show up at the local emergency room with a compound fracture, meningitis, a six inch gash, acute appendicitis, strep throat, etc. Do you turn them away and let them die?

[msrngtp2002]

There in lies the issue - change the law that requires providers treat people regardless of their ability to pay. No insurance (or proven ability to pay), no treatment.

That might require letting little Johnny with parents who spend their money on all the gadgets but don’t buy health insurance to NOT get his broken arm set. Or the person without health insurance who discovers they have cancer might just have to die at home in pain. Now anyone who walks into the hospital gets treated (at least triaged) without regard for their ability to pay.