Perhaps. Iirc over the last 4 years or so, the number of uninsured in the USA has grown from about 30 million to now about 47 million.

What is the cost to our society of about 47 million who don’t have health insurance but will need health care at some point? It has to drive up the cost for those who do have it. The pertinent question is: is there a better value if all contribute to some kind of plan or is the system in place the most economical?

Also, not unrelated, given a roughly 20% annual increase in rates, how long before almost no one can afford healthcare insurance - 4 years? 8 years?

So, no pay, no play. Doesn't drive up the cost for those that have it.

I doubt it. So far, the govt has done a wonderful job of spending our money in frivolous ways. They can't even balance their own budget using all the accounting tricks and we are asking if they can do more? What they have touched has become more complicated and with more red tape. Look at HIPPA and the pharmacy. We have to wait till an R.Ph can give us the meds even if it is the 450th time we have gotten a refill.

Good question. Here is another one. The price of things go up till few can afford it. What happens then? Just like most things, if it goes up so high, will the few that can pay be enough to sustain the company? If not won't they have to lower the price?

It is in the interest of national security not to have a high percentage of the population dying from treatable illnesses. So even if it was moral to let people without insurance die in front of hospitals like cockroaches, it'd be bad for worker productivity and thus the economy, just like it would be bad to have a high percentage of the population on drugs. That's why we have drug laws and we should also have laws guaranteeing health care for everyone, as long as you are a legal resident of course. Illegals should be deported or legalized on a case by case basis immediately.

Yeah. Next time I cut my hand, I'm not going to get stitches again. Costs too much.

National Security?? How about butt wiping? Is that against national security for a high number of people to go without wiping their butts? Sooner or later, that is what it is going to get to.

So move them somewhere else.

How so?

What else do you want to guarantee them? 3 hots and a cot? How about a car so they can go to work. Free daycare for their kids while you are at it. While we are at it, why not guarantee that they will be happy? After all, if they are unhappy, it might erode our national security.

On what basis should they be legalized? They have committed a crime.

I don't know why you bring up butt wiping, but look at some of the countries in Africa that have high rates of HIV infections. Entire segments of the population are dying out. You think that's good for their economies? Take a look at their falling GDP's. Of course the US situation is not as bad, but I'm just providing an example of what happens to the economy when too many people die or are unable to work due to some treatable illness.

Immigration is another issue, but I just brought it up so you don't accuse me of wanting to provide free health care to illegals which I certainly don't want to see. There's no excuse to have illegal immigrants in any country. Legalize those that we really need, deport the rest, issue hefty fines to employers who hire illegals and guard the border better.

Because sooner or later, it is going to come to that. Think there isn't more hand holding and coddling than 100 years ago? How about 80 years ago? 60? Look at what we have today. Basically going more and more into a "cradle to grave" thing. Now you are calling for a gaurantee of health. What next? Are we to say that because savings are important, we need to give these people a savings account? What about proper meals, exercise, etc, etc? Where does it end? Probably with wiping the butts of those who cannot and/or will not. People get pregnant and we have to take care of their young. WTF? I didn't have sex with that woman. Why is it my responsibility?

Is that the only reason for the falling GDP? We have become more and more "socially progressive" but we seem to be declining. Maybe it is because there are less and less incentives for people to improve themselves. Maybe if they see a few more sick and starving people, it might get into their skulls that "If I don't wake up and stop wasting my life away, I might end up like that guy on the corner of 5th and Main, begging for food, sick as can be, etc, etc". I don't know about you but that is one hell of a motivation to me.

IOW reward those that break the border laws? What does that say to people like you and I that do it legally? That it is optional? Any other legal items that can be made optional too?

Let the border go. Let as many of them come as they want. No benefits or jobs. Hire an illegal? Huge fine. 2nd time? Jail for the owners. 3rd time? Liquidate the company. Of that doesn't stop them, I don't think much else will.

I understand your concerns and I certainly wouldn't want to see taxpayer-funded butt wiping. I wouldn't want anything to go too far, not just health care, but that's obvious and I didn't think it needed mentioning. You are the one who likes to play with hypothetical, often extreme, what if's, but they're irrelevant unless they become reality. We're still far from that.

US GDP is higher than ever, so blaming social progressivism is wrong. Find something else to blame.

You automatically assume that I want to give some illegals special privileges when legalizing them. Don't assume anything. I'm fine with what was discussed in Congress a year or two ago. Give these people a chance to apply and get back in the line with everyone else after paying a fine and back taxes for working here illegally. I see no privilege there.

I did mention fining employers who hire illegals, though I didn't mention here that I think that's the most important part of immigration control. If that's enforced, the border will certainly be easier to guard.

50 years ago, we might have thought that things that happen today would be ridiculous but it is common place today. Think it is impossible? Look at your car manuals. See what they were in the past and see what they are today. Today we have to watch out for somebody else and their stupidity. We seem to have to state the obvious just for those that don't get it. We have to be responsible for someone else. At what point will it end?

So please explain our declining position. If we are making more than ever, we should be doing better than ever. Is that so?

Why? Why even let them in again?

If you put hefty fines and toss the employers in jail, liquidate the companies that employ them and give them no benefits whatsoever, I would think that few people will want to run over here. Why take any trouble coming here when there is no opportunity?

If you're talking about legal liability and how far it goes, I agree it's ridiculous, but that's a different topic from health care. Europe has government health care, but they don't have the same ridiculous level of legal liability, so you can see these are separate issues. If anything they seem like opposing issues.

The US isn't really declining as much as the rest of the world is rising, so the decline is mostly an illusion. The only real problem we have is the debt & deficit, which got much worse under Bush. I know you said Clinton used accounting tricks to project a surplus, but Bush has the same tricks at his disposal and he can't balance the budget even with those tricks.

If you completely deny them from entering again, is that fair? It's not like they killed someone (those who merely crossed illegally).

You still need to guard the border though. The black market is thriving more than ever and punishing employers is not some silver bullet, though it's important.

What? Is that like the girl saying "It's not you, it's me."? Are we as well off today as we were 50 years ago by our position in the world? What was our position then vs our position now?

Know why I think people like you are part of the problem? When I said that our govt can't balance the budget, I am talking about the exec and legislative branches. I don't think the judicial has much influence here. IN THEORY, the E branch and the L branch are keeping each other in check. In real life, people like you blame the E branch for the budget. Did Clinton craft the budget and sign it? Did Bush write and sign the budget? Nope. AFAIK, the Prez, whomever it is, sends his REQUEST to Congress. Beyond that, he can only sign it into law or veto it. People like Tom W will say that the veto is very powerful. Yes, in theory. However, if the budget is held up, who will people like you blame? Who did you credit and blame for the budget? It is people like you who will put more heat on the E branch. Somehow, the L branch is missing in your equations. IOW, if it comes to a standoff, who will be under more pressure. So, you think Clinton wrote a balanced budget? Probably if you consider that he signed on the dotted line after getting what he wants.

If you or I were criminals in our previous countries, do you think they would say "Sure. Welcome."?

What do the illegals come here for? Think they are Japanese? IIRC, the Japanese come to Hawaii because it is cheaper for them to play golf there than in Japan. What else does it leave? The scenery? If the employers are deathly afraid of hiring them and they get no benefits here, why would they come here? May not stop each and every one but I'll give 100 to 1 odds that it will stop most.

I do wonder about the cost/benefit of military
spending vs health care spending.

We spend a lot on the military and homeland security.
What is the cost per life saved?

If we spend more on health care instead could we save more
lives per dollar? Some of the uninsured have conditions that
they don't know about that could be treated now before it kills
them. Hypertension, early detection of cancer etc.

Why do we feel patriotic about military spending and not health care
spending?

Go build a strong health care system instead of a military then. It will make it easier and nicer for the next guy to come along and take over what you have built.

Health care is your personal responsibility. It has little to do with the promise of life, liberty and the PURSUIT (NOT GUARANTEE) of happiness.

We could have both, strong health care+military. We are in 1st place
for military spending, we could cut our military spending by 50% and
still be 1st by a large margin.

Health care has everything to do with the promise of life.

50%? What about the military personnel?

How so? You are promised that you will have your life and liberty if you don't commit some crime. Beyond that, go pursue happiness. Nothing about happiness being thrust on you.