Equating firefighting to health care is dumb. Especially since the current debate hinges on government CONTROL of the system. The problem is they want to cover the 15% of Americans without coverage (a lot of which choose to be that way) by breaking the system for the other 85%, most of whom are happy with it the way it is. Common sense dictates that a proposed plan SOLVES the problem, which is not the case with Obama. His plan is to CONTROL the system.

Everybody will need to spend money on healthcare at some point in their life, MOST people will not have to use the services of a fire department. As people get older, more money is spent on health issues. As you get older, there is no increase in usage of the fire department by the same people. To the fire department, each citizen is equivalent, which if that was the case in healthcare, we would not have a problem.

The problem with healthcare has been known for years, anybody with a brain saw it coming. You can also substitute the word "social security" for "healthcare" and the problem is the same.

And for those not in the know, it was caused by the aging of the baby boomers. When the boomers were contributing to the system, all was well. Problem is they get older, retire and now start to suck out of the system. But now we have more people on the debit side than we do on the credit side. The young financed the old, but now the old outnumber the young substantially.

Maybe the government had hoped for another baby boom, who knows? Either way what has happened was ALWAYS going to happen, no way around it without increasing the supply or decreasing demand. They cannot force either, and the supply of medical care has been flat for years, so increasing demand automatically means reducing supply RELATIVE to demand, which will be rationing.

__________________
MB-less