Exactly as I predicted: you just repeated the arguments that others have made, and that I've dealt with. That's why I asked you to read the replies to #19, and my replies to them. The answer to your objection lies there.
My argument is sound, in NH where people by and large, are responsible, government has not had to step in, but with respect to the health payment crisis in the USA, that is not the case. Large groups of people seek free care believing it is their right to get it. They are irresponsible and it is time for government to cause them to either be responsible or pay in advance.
You're talking about collective punishment. Whatever that is, it's not conservative.
What is your solution to the health care payment crisis in the USA? Is it Hillary care, aka, nationalized medical care? No care for the poor?
We're not talking about the poor, that is, people who can't afford insurance at all. We're talking about those who can pay for it, but don't, and then get medical bills they can't pay off. It's a simple matter of making them face consequences for incurring expenses they can't pay off, just as is done with other types of expenses. Just as I explained at #80.
WRT 93, it seems but I might be wrong that the problem you have with Mitt's plan is that if one reads very closely it will eventually cause criminal aliens to actually pay for all of the free care they have gotten over the years.
If you think this will affect illegal aliens, you're dreaming. It would be the only upside of the proposal if it will, but it's not going to happen.
What do you mean, can afford insurance but can't afford the bill? If they had insurance the bill may be inconsequential.
Being able to afford insurance is not the same as actually having it. Did you read the article?
I still think you like the status quo because so many get over on the financially responsible and then send their cash back south over the border.
Get help.