[BJungNan]

Asking people to share costs doesn't work when you're talking about high-end users like the disabled and the elderly,"

This is the raising of an exception to defend the continuation of totally free service. The facts are that many people getting public health assistance can afford to pay something. And when they are required to pay, they use the service more judiciously.

-Little Johnny or Susie has the sniffles. Should we take them to the doctor? Why not, it's free.

- Little Johnny or Susie has the sniffles. Should we take them to the doctor? Why don't we wait, they started charging a co-pay of $20.00 a visit. Let's give it a day and see if thier common cold gets better.

[CitizenUSA]

Well said, BJungNan: "The facts are that many people getting public health assistance can afford to pay something. And when they are required to pay, they use the service more judiciously."

I was a member of the military, which has totally free health care for the active duty force and their dependents. Totally free service results in a lot of people rushing to the military hospitals for colds and other minor, non-life-threatening issues. The only possible result of totally free care is overcrowded hospitals leading to rationed or poor-quality service for all!

Co-payments are a great idea for reducing costs. It is a common trick of the bleeding hearts to bring up exceptions to try to invalidate an entire conservative concept, yet we know the "elderly", for example, includes everything from incredibly wealthy to very poor people! Most, I would argue, could and SHOULD pay a greater share, even if that means they have less money for other uses, which are mostly likely "wants" and not necessarily "needs."