There are plenty of people in this country that have worked hard to get what they have. But there are many many more that got it off the backs of others and not lagit. You have an audit on the fed and politicians and you will find many if not all have abused their position and influence to to make themselves rich and their friends their is proof of exactly this so wake the hell up and see the whole picture.

__________________
When you came into this world you cried.
Live your life so that when you die.
The world cries. the shadow

__________________
No More Fate And No More Mystery Even As Time Falls Away I Live My Days Every Moment And Its Memory Not Only To Survive, To Die Alive.

Other than additives and a different compound with less sodium, how is an antacid different from bicarbonate of soda, which when branded as an antacid is called Alka Selzer.

No one to my knowledge argues that government mandates of health insurance is free, but what they do argue, and what I keep pointing out, is that the US system of for profit push the cost on other people ends up costing individuals at least as much as they would pay in places like Germany, Japan, Switzerland, and often more.

That you keep arguing that because you can't see the bills for healthcare being extracted from you in taxes of all sorts that are applied to your property, your rent, your local sales taxes, your local income taxes, your Federal taxes, your insurance premium, your wages, your employers costs of doing business, your cost of health insurance is less than in places like Germany means you believe that healthcare in the US is nearly free, because the only cost burden you create and bear is the insurance premium your employer pays.

Someone pays the bills of those who lack health insurance and the means to pay for their healthcare, and you are definitely on the list of someones, unless you are the one creating the bills without the means to pay them.

And by the way, what I argue for is mandatory health insurance for everyone, with multiple not for profit insurers available competing for your business, operating under rules imposed by these insurers on themselves as part of a true risk sharing system.

Everyone must have insurance and everyone must get insurance on equal footing, and further rules would be determined by the insurers themselves to be applied to all.

For those who can't afford the insurance, a system of income tax based coverage would pay the premium for a minimum standard policy which is offered by all the insurers.

The end result is that no one is uninsured and all claims are paid according to common rules set by all insurers on themselves.

Other than for the subsidy for those who earn too little to afford to pay the total cost of the health insurance, there would be no hidden costs that are taken out of taxes that have nothing to do with healthcare.

And the case for subsidizing the low wage earners is the same as subsidizing the protection the get from the police and the courts, from the fire department, from the schools, etc.

And before making the argument that the schools shouldn't be paid for by government, Jefferson made the point repeatedly that without the people being educated, the Constitution can't be maintained.

While the government supported private schools in many places, public schools were advocated to provide a uniform education to assimulate all the different cultures of the immigrants that were the backbone of the nation. If you argue that the government should provide ballots and other government services in multiple languages, then you can argue for replacing public schools with private schools that teach what the parents want. Public schools became the national norm in order to promote the heterogenous society that people like Rush Limbaugh demands be the norm that all conform to.

So, there are no uninsured in Texas? Everyone is able to see a doctor and get care without it being an emergency, and will not be bankrupted, or end up stiffing the doctor or hospital when they need care on a preventative basis or for required care? Your property taxes, or state income taxes or your and my Federal taxes aren't going to pay the bills of the uninsured in Texas?

Somehow I suspect that your Texas health insurance system doesn't pay the bills for at least a third of the care provided in Texas and that care is provided by taxes on Texans. And if taxes are paying healthcare bills instead of insurance paying the bills, then Texas doesn't have a solution to the problem.

So, you reject the idea of health insurance for anyone that has a preexisting condition, such as a genetic defect or disability due to developmental problems or accident? Doesn't that mean you are almost certain to suffer from some condition your insurer will argue it isn't required to cover? After all, paying for cancer treatment is a burden on profits, and for many people is effectively a preexisting condition present at birth. Women seem to be in a double bind: take one set of drugs to reduce risk of cancer which seem to be tied to genes, and this increases the odds of suffering heart problems, also likely tied to genes.

One of the interesting aspects of insurance in the US was that for much of history it was a mutual insurance business, the insurance company was owned by the insured. This meant there was no profit motive driving the insurance company policies, but instead the interests of all the insured who owned and were insured by the company.

Why is a for profit insurance company in any way better for the common interests of the insured?

Why should an insurance company pay any claim that it can avoid paying for your healthcare because doing so will increase its profits. And this is particularly true if you are facing a terminal condition; by denying payment and thus care, you die, and once dead are not in a position to sue the insurer, tho generally you sign away that right anyway, to force the insurer to pay for the care that will save your life. In a mutual insurance company, the insured who support such a policy in their ownership role end up denying themselves and their families that care should they need it, hardly a policy in accord with their self interest.

Finally got the statement from Medicare outlining how much they paid for my last Annual physical.... a whopping 22.4% of the total cost. Now I can submit a claim to my real insurance provider. They'll pay the remainder. THANK GOD FOR PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES.

That $238 per month premium I pay Medicare plus the FICA withheld from my retirement pay every month is a RIPOFF.

__________________
If you want change stop electing "liberal: democrats and "radical" Republicans. Find and support true Conservatives; those who believe in fiscal responsibilities, individual accountability, and a smaller government, with less control of your daily life.

Clearly, that "private" service offered in the US is more "efficient" than any of the other nations that you mentioned...unless you declare waiting several months to years for some "life supporting" service that remains constantly overbooked.....as superior. Also the nations you tout as superior in fact of providing entitlement programs....also share the common trait of not being capable of "protecting" their citizenship....as clearly demonstrated time and time again by history, with the openly "capitalistic society" of the Untied States coming to the defense of such nations on many occasions. And as I said, and you tried to "deflect" by ignoring and tangent like going off on another subject....The services which you suggest, DO NOT PRODUCE taxable income, and are nothing but a "dead drain" upon the national economy, even if the funding is produced by heaping even more taxes upon our "capitalistic businesses".....just who do think will "eat" the cost of these higher taxes that will be needed to support such a non taxable source of health care....NO ONE BUT "WE THE PEOPLE" as the businesses will only pass those extra taxes down the line by raising the cost of whatever product they may be servicing the public at large with.

And of course, there is always the fact....we must maintain and be ready to implement a standing SUPER POWER military, that not only protects its citizens but an entire "hemisphere" to include our "socialized" friends to the north...that "DEPENDS" upon the US Military to protect them...so they may spend their national revenue on "entitlement social programs" as you just described. We do not have that capacity...to maintain such as you espouse. If you do not believe this....SIMPLY LOOK AT THE EXAMPLE PRESENTED BY THE U.S..S.R.....Now you are suggesting that we "follow in their bankrupted footprints?" BD