Replies

See, even without mandatory insurance, the poor and the criminal alien get free care anyway. At least with some sort of mandatory insurance, those who are not desperately poor will pay some, and those who have money but refuse to pay for their care will be required to pay for their insurance.

"See, even without Communism, the poor in Russia managed to eat somehow anyway. At least with mandatory State control of the economy, they are able to "even out the bumps" and ensure a fair distribution to all. From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need!"

The question is, and no one who claims to be conservative will answer it, is, will you agree or do you agree then, if a poor person has no means to pay or has no health insurance, and the person who has money but not enough to pay for his head injury he caused by not wearing a helmet while getting off hard of his brand new Harley, that they should be denied care and set aside in a dark room waiting for family to come a get them to die at home? Do we as a society deny a reasonable level of health care to those who have not the means to pay? If you agree with that, then you are true to your argument and we therefore can do away with mandatory insurance and care for all. But if you can't articulate what the alternative is, just that mandatory insurance is an affront to your sensitivities, then think some more, and get back to me.

If you insist on socializing the concept of "charity" from the private sector (churches and other charitable institutions) to The State, then you should provide a bare-bones form of "charity", i.e., no-luxury poverty wards, etc.

If it's good enough for those who shed blood for our country (have you ever been inside a VA hospital?), it's good enough for those who DECIDE to take a free ride on the backs of the rest of us.

But, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about "fair" distribution and supply.

If we were talking about "food" instead of "health services delivery" (as a former state HMO Commissioner, I do know the lingo), then we would be giving filet mignon and lobster to "the poor" -- or, more likely, having "the rich" living on rice and beans.

It's socialism, get over it. PLEASE stop trying to pretend it's anything but. The more convoluted the pro-socialism BS apologetics get, the more I feel like clearing my throat and spitting on the monitor.