Interesting and intriguing read. Good find, subby.

That was the only thing I've ever seen from American Thinker that even made sense, let alone that I agreed with...

Interesting article....... maybe someone has the time to verify the details....

I think we could reduce our healthcare costs by just using common sense... and seeing your local shaman.

real shaman: ... and seeing your local shaman.

For real. Chain Heal/Earth Shield ftw.

Go Go Chinchilla!: I agree with the article. If we're going to be stuck with universal health care, let's do it right. Australia's Medicare system provides basic coverage, while leaving Aussies with the option of purchasing additional coverage if they deem it necessary.

I agree completely, we extend medicare to everybody for basic care, private insurance companies would then provide gap coverage. It is a system that has been proven to work without breaking the bank.

The true libertarian way of handling healthcare would be for all of the physicians to disappear to Galt's Gultch, until the whiny "free health care" libs start dying off from disease. Then they would return to provide their services directly to people who can afford to pay for them. How do you afford to pay for healthcare? WORK. Pay the doctor before you buy that new tv, cell phone, or Prius.

My philoshpy? Pay for your own healthcare or just be sick. Free country....your choice! (Kinda like that hated philosphy of, "A man who doesn't work, doesn't eat". This country would never exist if today's liberals were on the Mayflower.

/Flame on, whiny libs!

I have yet to hear anyone tell me how they plan to cure the $15 aspirin and the $20,000 a night hospital room. Insurance doesn't meean squat when the bills run into the millions of dollars.

According to the CATO Institute, the net cost of health regulation in the U.S. is over $169 billion, or an average of $1,500 per household.

that's telling. the more coverages you mandate a policy have--even if the buyer doesn't want them--the higher the cost. why should a single male want pregnancy coverage? he should have an option to get a cheaper policy without it.

get government out of meddling in health insurance, not more into it

That's not a conservative view: it deals with reality.

There's some kind of deep, deep irony that "Libtards" have been saying this same thing for years but one "conservative" needs a heart transplant for his daughter and suddenly he's against paying twice for universal care and for "socialized medicine?"

Wait, I take it back, this is a conservative article: because everyone's a libertarian right up to the point that their daughter needs a heart transplant.

Which is why libertarianism is a failed religion.

millertrey: Kinda like that hated philosphy of, "A man who doesn't work, doesn't eat". This country would never exist if today's liberals were on the Mayflower.

"A man who doesn't work, doesn't eat" is an over simplified maxim for what is actually a much more complex situation. When the impoverished are ignored crime increases, it is a well established fact that blue collar crime rates follow economic trends. So your choice is feed the impoverished or live with the risk of higher crime.

Also the puritans on the Mayflower were radical liberals for their time. And the Plymouth Rock settlement was originally set up as a communal village where products and services were shared equally among all members of the community.

timmy_the_tooth: There's some kind of deep, deep irony that "Libtards" have been saying this same thing for years but one "conservative" needs a heart transplant for his daughter and suddenly he's against paying twice for universal care and for "socialized medicine?"

It just goes to the fact that Liberal ideas always win out in the end. In the 18th century abolishing slavery was a radically liberal idea, until it became the law of the land with the 14th amendment. In the 19th century women's suffrage was a radically liberal idea, until it became the law of the land with the 19th amendment. In the early 20th century equal rights for blacks was considered a radically liberal idea in the South, until it became the law of the land with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

We may look back and see slavery and discrimination as horribly backwards ideas. We can look at those who espouse those ideas as quaint throwback to a better forgotten age. But the fact is that all of these things were institutions our nation in the past, and their abolishment was considered radically liberal by many at one time or another. But, as history shows, in time Liberal ideas always win.

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Instead of a $20 co-pay/$80 insured office visit when an uninsured person has the sniffles, they go to the ER for a $1500 visit that involves zillions of lawsuit-precluding tests OR they wait until the sniffles become full-on pnuemonia because they can't afford a doc and that costs even more.

You hit it right on the head.

1. Uninsured people rack up huge ED / hospital bills, causing the hospital to have to charge even more to the people who can pay.

2. Insurance companies have to pay out more to cover increased costs to their insured clients, so they raise premiums.

3. People / businesses can't afford increased premiums, so they lose insurance coverage.

4. Goto #1

Bottom line, we all end up paying. The only ones in this game winning are the insurance companies and their shareholders. They have us hostage, and they pay our elected officials a lot of "contributions" to keep it that way.

Come on Rugged Individualists... tell me why I'm wrong.

alywa: 1. Uninsured people rack up huge ED / hospital bills, causing the hospital to have to charge even more to the people who can pay.

hospitals and doctors also charge us more because medicare and medicaid reimbursements are too low.

as i said above, we need less government meddling and mandates that drive up costs. address that and you can take down the cost of health insurance significantly.

I also would like to point out that you also pay for college twice; once in taxes and once in cash.

Which is why I'm for free college...

I think we all can agree that Hillary's plan of FORCED private insurance is the worst of all worlds.

timmy_the_tooth: I think we all can agree that Hillary's plan of FORCED private insurance is the worst of all worlds.

In a way it is a style of corporate welfare as it mandates all citizens to get health insurance, but does not mandate a maximum premium/co-pay, minimum service, or thresholds for service cancellation. So it guarantees income for the insurance companies, but it does not guarantee coverage for the insured.

I agree with the diagnosis, but not with the treatment. The author's attitude is basically, "big government is inevitable, so just lie back and try to enjoy it." This is not conservative, and it is not libertarian. It concedes the entire field to the statists. It conserves nothing, and does nothing to expand liberty.

I agree that we are paying for health care twice, once privately and once publicly. The solution to this is not to abandon more private expenditures to the state. It is to remove as much of the state from the business of health care as possible. If our objective in health care is to control costs, then why run so much of it through the state? Have you ever known any government program that has successfully managed to control costs? I don't think so, and for a very simple reason: when something is controlled by the government, it is ultimately controlled by politicians. And those politicians are controlled in turn by those with money and political influence, who use that influence to get as many resources for themselves, and the heck with the rest of us. (This is called "rent-seeking;" where "rent" is value that is not earned by work, but by manipulating the levers of political and legal power.) As long as it is controlled by interested parties, there is no incentive to control costs. Period.

I appreciate the fact that the author's daughter needed a heart transplant. But let's look at the facts of that situation - he had insurance to pay for it. So despite its emotional appeal, it is not an argument in favor of universal health coverage provided through governments - it is an argument for making private insurance both cheaper and more widely available. If people could get health insurance as easily as they could get auto insurance or a cell phone contract, there wouldn't be a health care crisis in this country.

The truly conservative and libertarian solution is to rely largely (but not completely) on consumer choice. People are different - they have different needs and different desires. One-size-fits-all plans will not cover all Americans any more than size 36-34 pants will.

The most important thing to do is to break the link between employment and health care. American citizens are expected to pay for their own auto insurance, their own home or renter's insurance, and their own life insurance. Why should health insurance be any different? (And don't tell me because "it's a right." Rights are what you invoke to force people, either individuals or government to stop doing something to you. Rights do not allow you to affirmatively claim something from individuals. You, as an individual, have no right to force other people to work for your benefit. If they want to work for your benefit, they must freely choose to do so.) Instead of our employer-dominated health care system, let's require companies to just pay their workers whatever they are paying right now for health insurance directly into the worker's paychecks. (For those at the low end of the scale who are not presently getting health insurance, an increase in the minimum wage would be an acceptable substitute.)

Then, make health insurance portable - let the workers choose their own health insurance plans, according to their own needs and their own desires. Some may choose all-inclusive plans with low deductibles (for example, I have Kaiser Permanente, and I've never had a problem with it). Some may choose to get higher-deductible insurance for catstrophic coverage, and pay for routine care out of tax-free health savings accounts. Or anything in between. The point is, it should be their choice, not the government's. The advantage to this is that the insurance companies will now have the right incentives. Those that provide good care at a reasonable price will survive and prosper. Those that do not will fail and go out of business. (Also, to mitigate the problems of pre-existing conditions, a simple bargain: insurance companies will not be able to charge higher rates on the basis of prior health conditions, but they will be able to charge higher rates on the basis of unhealthy behaviors that lead to those conditions. You shouldn't be charged because you get cancer - it likely isn't your fault if you do. But if you're a smoker, you should be charged more for your habit, since you're the one taking the risk.)

Health care is just one of those things that everyone needs. You need food, you need clothes, you need shelter, you need health care. Plan for it. But what about those who genuine can't afford health care, through no fault of their own? That's where government can legitimately step in, and provide health care benefits - means-tested, of course. But this common liberal notion that people are hard-hearted bastards who don't care about others, so they have to be thrown in with everyone else lest they try to cut spending on the poor (e.g. "programs for the poor are poor programs") is nonsense on stilts. People don't mind caring for the poor - they do mind being played for suckers.

Code_Archeologist: "A man who doesn't work, doesn't eat" is an over simplified maxim for what is actually a much more complex situation. When the impoverished are ignored crime increases, it is a well established fact that blue collar crime rates follow economic trends. So your choice is feed the impoverished or live with the risk of higher crime.

You have to be careful how you go about it, though. Otherwise, you create perverse incentives, and the impoverished figure out it is better to not work at all and simply live permanently on the dole. (Economists call this a "moral hazard" - where an attempt to provide a safety net for unexpected contingencies induces more risky and less beneficial behavior.)

Also the puritans on the Mayflower were radical liberals for their time. And the Plymouth Rock settlement was originally set up as a communal village where products and services were shared equally among all members of the community.

And that's why the Puritans all damn near starved to death that first winter. Something similar is ultimately the fate of the vast majority of communal societies - since they presume, against all evidence and history, that men are angels when they are not, they either fall victim to the tragedy of the commons, or they mutate into tyrannies. (The tragedy of the commons is also libertarianism's greatest blind spot. Trying to avoid the tragedy of the commons through force is liberalism's greatest vice.)

millertrey: My philoshpy? Pay for your own healthcare or just be sick.

I doubt you'll enjoy that incurable ass cancer I hope you get.

MasterThief: I agree with the diagnosis



I just don't got that kinda time.

albo: hospitals and doctors also charge us more because medicare and medicaid reimbursements are too low

Medicare reimbursement dictates what the other insurers pay too. It works out as a pre-set fraction, sometimes over, sometimes under the Medicare Benchmark.

Personally, if I got reimbursed at the Medicare Level for every patient I see, I'd be pretty damn happy. Add in a more streamlined billing process (ie one payer, not a bunch of separate "Co-Insurance" plans), and my job would be a hell of a lot easier.

As it is now, I get stiffed on a fair number of patients, even some with insurance. The no-insurance crowd can't really afford to pay for an emergency surgery or treatment, and the crappy insurance companies always try to weasel out of paying in some way or another.

You could say "don't see people who can't pay"... but you're not the one dealing with them after a car tire exploded in their face, filling their eye with blood. Or helping the guy out who got a piece of metal in his eye while cutting a pipe. Or the 21-year old girl who got the shiat beat out of her by her thug boyfriend. It's called compassion, and professional responsibility.

I do a lot of stuff the ED docs aren't trained to do, I charge a lot less for it, and I end up doing a bunch of it for free. I'd much rather get paid for my work, and not a bunch of United Healthcare stockholders.

Truse me... as someone who deals with this on a daily basis... Medicare isn't perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better than the other plans out there.

Code_Archeologist: In a way it is a style of corporate welfare as it mandates all citizens to get health insurance, but does not mandate a maximum premium/co-pay, minimum service, or thresholds for service cancellation. So it guarantees income for the insurance companies, but it does not guarantee coverage for the insured.

yep. it would be the biggest corporate welfare program seen since the farm bill.

Thought provoking article.

Though, lately I've heard complaints about healthcare in countries which have a form of blanket coverage, ranging from krappy treatment, to waiting months for an operation, to dying while waiting for an operation or expensive treatment.

Things could be made a whole lot better here in the US by clamping down on the mass of ridiculous lawsuits dealing with all things medical. Your medical costs from the physician to medical supplies have soared because of the huge increase in the need for malpractice insurance and the major premiums it requires.

Consider this: Chances are roughly 99% that every physician in your town has been sued. Your local hospital not only has been sued but probably is quietly involved in several suits right now. Every pharmaceutical company has been sued. The makers of medical supplies and equipment have been sued and many of them are still in litigation.

This raises the costs.

Obstetricians -- those physicians who deliver your kids -- are the most sued of all doctors, so much that we're starting to have a shortage of them as many change their practice, tired of litigation, huge malpractice premiums and the insane settlement provided by juries.

Your emergency room charges you a bundle because the hospital handles patients who can't pay and has to pay out various lawsuit settlements plus carry malpractice insurance and a team of lawyers. Patients can't pay because they can't afford the health insurance, whose premiums have soared because they have to pay enormous bills.

I left the medical field back in the 70s -- and would not go back into it again because of the litigious patients. Even home health aids now have to carry liability insurance and home health care companies need to carry liability and malpractice.

Naturally, there are many in the medical field who are greedy and charge high prices -- but their numbers are actually less than you might think.

To cover themselves from lawsuits based on potential neglect, which started in the 80s, your physicians need to shove a whole bunch of expensive and probably unnecessary tests on you. The precedent was set years ago when Doctors got sued because they did not perform tests that might have caught a patient's problem -- usually because the tests were painful, too expensive or the physician just felt they were not necessary. Naturally, to cover themselves now, you get tests that normally they would never have given you -- and your insurance pays for them and jacks up your premium.

Think about it.

Medical care started becoming tremendously expensive in the late 70s and early 80s -- about the same time as everyone discovered they could get bundles of cash from suing everyone for every thing. Shortly after, health insurance companies raised their rates and businesses and people started dropping coverage as too expensive.

Consider also that the top 30% of the folks making money in the US have absolutely no need for Medicare or Medicaid -- ever. Yet the laws covering Social Security force them to take it. We've had presidents who had to take the monthly checks and donated them to charity. I've worked for the very rich, who used their social security check as pocket change to tip their club waiters.

Cut out the social security benefits to those who really don't need them, and save about a billion or so a year.

I suspect that Bill Gates has no need for his social security benefits and check.

I think a general reform is needed to put the brakes on the insane litigious practices before only the super rich will be able to afford medical care.

ThatGuyGreg: I just don't got that kinda time.

Ultra-short version: People need health care. This does not necessarily mean they need government to run it.

MasterThief: You have to be careful how you go about it, though. Otherwise, you create perverse incentives, and the impoverished figure out it is better to not work at all and simply live permanently on the dole. (Economists call this a "moral hazard" - where an attempt to provide a safety net for unexpected contingencies induces more risky and less beneficial behavior.

No one solution is ever perfect, and as times change so too must the methods change that employ societal safety nets. The fact is safety nets spur economic growth by mitigating risk of innovation and entrepreneurialism. Free riders are always going to be a problem, but the increased economic benefits of mitigated risk outweigh the negative impact free riders have on the system.

This totally misses the point of health care, which is to heal people and promote health. OMB studies show that quality of results from care vary wildly and are demonstrably unrelated to how much is spent. The issue is not universal care or not, it is how long it will take us to realize that torturing old people by keeping them hooked up to machines that go ping as long as possible is costing us a fortune and getting us next to nothing in return. Care is costly, but emergency rooms are always ready. How much sense does that make?

Rik01: Things could be made a whole lot better here in the US by clamping down on the mass of ridiculous lawsuits dealing with all things medical. Your medical costs from the physician to medical supplies have soared because of the huge increase in the need for malpractice insurance and the major premiums it requires.

I've never seen a study that could peg litigation to any more than ~3% of healthcare costs...

Something like 10% of doctors are the cause of over 70% of malpractice suits... maybe we just have some bad doctors?

// Numbers are out of my ass, but ballpark... I don't feel like looking it up, so sue me

Medical care started becoming tremendously expensive in the late 70s and early 80s -- about the same time as everyone discovered they could get bundles of cash from suing everyone for every thing. Shortly after, health insurance companies raised their rates and businesses and people started dropping coverage as too expensive.

You're right, there have been no other changes since the 70s in healthcare...


How do you explain the lack of difference in insurance premiums between those states that have capped payments and those that haven't?

m0llusk: The issue is not universal care or not, it is how long it will take us to realize that torturing old people by keeping them hooked up to machines that go ping as long as possible is costing us a fortune and getting us next to nothing in return.

End-of-life care is a big problem, and it is getting worse. Most people die in hospitals now... this used to not be the case.

Dealing with death and the family is really challenging, seemingly worse in lower SES groups. It is one thing if 23 year old Billy dies from a car accident. It is entirely different when 89 year-old Ethel dies from congestive heart failure. A lot of people can't get over the fact that we have a 100% death rate, and dialysis, ventilators, IV nutrition, etc are not prolonging life, but merely delaying death for the vast majority of people on them.

Add in the fact that more and more people are living into their 80-90's, and that having Grandma live at our home isn't a sacrifice most are willing to make, this is going to become a bigger deal than the uninsured population.

As it stands now, "Conservatives" are sticking their head in the sand and not looking at the real issues. We need a new outlook on the role of medicine... namely healing the sick, and caring for the dying. We aren't going to heal the dying, but we can make the experience more comfortable.

I once had a really old mentor (a GP in his 80's) tell me that "pneumonia was an old man's friend." I thought that was pretty heartless at the time, but there was a lot of wisdom in that quote.

alywa: m0llusk: The issue is not universal care or not, it is how long it will take us to realize that torturing old people by keeping them hooked up to machines that go ping as long as possible is costing us a fortune and getting us next to nothing in return.

End-of-life care is a big problem, and it is getting worse. Most people die in hospitals now... this used to not be the case.

Dealing with death and the family is really challenging, seemingly worse in lower SES groups. It is one thing if 23 year old Billy dies from a car accident. It is entirely different when 89 year-old Ethel dies from congestive heart failure. A lot of people can't get over the fact that we have a 100% death rate, and dialysis, ventilators, IV nutrition, etc are not prolonging life, but merely delaying death for the vast majority of people on them.

Add in the fact that more and more people are living into their 80-90's, and that having Grandma live at our home isn't a sacrifice most are willing to make, this is going to become a bigger deal than the uninsured population.

As it stands now, "Conservatives" are sticking their head in the sand and not looking at the real issues. We need a new outlook on the role of medicine... namely healing the sick, and caring for the dying. We aren't going to heal the dying, but we can make the experience more comfortable.

I once had a really old mentor (a GP in his 80's) tell me that "pneumonia was an old man's friend." I thought that was pretty heartless at the time, but there was a lot of wisdom in that quote.

kill the old people because it's too expensive? Spend on on the young, they are a more viable tax source.

>> If we're going to be stuck with universal health care

Geeze the 50 million without health insurance are gonna get stuck with universal health care.

What a terrible fate.

If we are to be consistent libertarians, then the government should stop meddling in health care and health insurance altogether. End Medicare. End Medicaid. Close down veterans' hospitals. Stop funding medical research. Stop funding pharmaceutical research. Stop mandating vaccines. Stop mandating emergency room treatment. Stop mandating health insurance policies. Stop doing those things that cost us 6.6% of our GDP when we have to kick in another 7% or more of our own.

If our government stopped all those things, then I would a happy libertarian.

This is why these people can't be taken seriously.

cartersdad: kill the old people because it's too expensive? Spend on on the young, they are a more viable tax source.

See, I'm not advocating killing the old. I am advocating having a realistic view on end-of-life issues, and not prolonging death through heroic measures.

Ultimately, this will end up being up to the patient and family, but education, frank discussion, and honesty is the key here. A dying patient and their family shouldn't feel abandoned, abused, or pressured. At the same time, counseling about the dying process needs to happen. The doctor, nurse, clergy, social workers, etc all have roles to play in this.

At what point does government healthcare start dictating our lifestyle?

Ohhh, cannot eat that, it's too fatty.

Cannot drink, smoke, cliff dive.

It's a slippery slope that we often seeing here on fark with our British farkers.

alywa: Come on Rugged Individualists... tell me why I'm wrong.

No, you're right...the problem is called Adverse Selection. It's why we have mandatory auto insurance in most states - the same problem exists.

>> This is why these people can't be taken seriously.

Of course they are nuts.

You know it and i know it.

The cons are nuts too.

But they had to fark up in office for the rest of the country to figure out they can't be taken seriously.

Somtime when your opponent takes power it can be very good for you in the long run.

HotWingConspiracy: This is why these people can't be taken seriously.

The Government got us into this mess. Regulations and mandates have made health care unaffordable for most folks. The Statists' solution? More Government. Yeah, that will fix it.

It's amazing how some people are beyond convinced that the State is the solution to everything. They have no cognitive ability to think differently.

I've been wondering when "conservatives" would start realizing how crappy the current deal we are getting on healthcare is. It's easy to see the need for major reform, if you just look at it objectively instead of viewing it as an attempt at liberal conspiracy.

Universal healthcare isn't just some way to force people to pay for others' care. It's also important to our national competitiveness because we need to be able to have a highly skilled and healthy workforce in order to compete with countries that do provide this stuff. And obviously healthcare has become a major economic drain that is severely harming American business (since we are forcing the burden of dealing with these rising costs onto them).

To whoever said we should sever the link between healthcare and employment: I agree, but not until there is a viable alternative in place to group plans. Individual plans are not a viable alternative because they cost way more than a large group plan since they don't spread the risk as well and hence suffer from adverse selection. My group plan is way cheaper (including my employer's costs) than any health insurance I could buy on my own with a similar level of benefits. Maybe the way to go would be some sort of government risk pooling or something.

>> At what point does government healthcare start dictating our lifestyle?

And at what point does the phony claim of freedom turn into...

well Galbraith said it best

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

My fear whenever conservatives seem to get on board with a good idea is that they are really seeking to sabotage it from the inside.

mmm... pancake: HotWingConspiracy: This is why these people can't be taken seriously.

The Government got us into this mess. Regulations and mandates have made health care unaffordable for most folks. The Statists' solution? More Government. Yeah, that will fix it.

Doesn't really seem to be going so bad in every other developed nation on the planet.

Mnemia: My group plan is way cheaper (including my employer's costs) than any health insurance I could buy on my own with a similar level of benefits.

The only plan you need is a high-deductible catastrophic policy. Everything else should be paid out of pocket. This is part of the reason costs are so damn high. People want health payment plans as opposed to health insurance.

HotWingConspiracy: Doesn't really seem to be going so bad in every other developed nation on the planet.

You're looking through rose-colored glasses.

>> It's amazing how some people are beyond convinced that the State is the solution to everything.

And the same Chicken Littles that cry "big government bad" are usually in favor of the biggest big government leech ever to suck on a tit.

The US MILITARY.

Get a real job you welfare leeches.

alywa: albo: hospitals and doctors also charge us more because medicare and medicaid reimbursements are too low

Medicare reimbursement dictates what the other insurers pay too. It works out as a pre-set fraction, sometimes over, sometimes under the Medicare Benchmark.

Personally, if I got reimbursed at the Medicare Level for every patient I see, I'd be pretty damn happy. Add in a more streamlined billing process (ie one payer, not a bunch of separate "Co-Insurance" plans), and my job would be a hell of a lot easier.

As it is now, I get stiffed on a fair number of patients, even some with insurance. The no-insurance crowd can't really afford to pay for an emergency surgery or treatment, and the crappy insurance companies always try to weasel out of paying in some way or another.

You could say "don't see people who can't pay"... but you're not the one dealing with them after a car tire exploded in their face, filling their eye with blood. Or helping the guy out who got a piece of metal in his eye while cutting a pipe. Or the 21-year old girl who got the shiat beat out of her by her thug boyfriend. It's called compassion, and professional responsibility.

I do a lot of stuff the ED docs aren't trained to do, I charge a lot less for it, and I end up doing a bunch of it for free. I'd much rather get paid for my work, and not a bunch of United Healthcare stockholders.

Truse me... as someone who deals with this on a daily basis... Medicare isn't perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better than the other plans out there.

yay opthalmology!

/medical student
/in car bottle rocket to the face FTW

...oh and as for the lawsuits. That doesn't do much of anything to lower costs for patients. However, reforms have made a comparative difference in costs for physicians in individual states, which makes certain states much more attractive to physicians, especially underpaid PCPs. If your state has a lot of old people, it's best to get some tort reform if you want someone around to take care of them...however the costs to the patient is an inaccurate justification for doing so.

Good find. Is it just me, or does real universal healthcare seem inevitable for the United States?

millertrey: The true libertarian way of handling healthcare would be for all of the physicians to disappear to Galt's Gultch, until the whiny "free health care" libs start dying off from disease. Then they would return to provide their services directly to people who can afford to pay for them. How do you afford to pay for healthcare? WORK. Pay the doctor before you buy that new tv, cell phone, or Prius.

Are you prepared to have people dying in the streets? Kinda ruins the quality of life. I prefer reality over ideology. There are prices to living in a society, and we don't like paying them all, but someties the alternative is worse.

>> Regulations and mandates have made health care unaffordable for most folks.

Notice the lack of any proof

twilson2: And the same Chicken Littles that cry "big government bad" are usually in favor of the biggest big government leech ever to suck on a tit.

The US MILITARY.

Get a real job you welfare leeches.

It could be because a national defense is actually a Federal power explicitly granted by the Constitution.

mmm... pancake: It's amazing how some people are beyond convinced that the State Free Market is the solution to everything. They have no cognitive ability to think differently.

Other side of the coin.