Originally Posted by Keith
So what is your alternative then Legislation in a Capitalistic society where a necessity to survival that everyone shares is too expensive and the sector that make it available engages in business practices that make it again non affordable or use arbitrary litigation to absolve itself from their consumers using what they paid for since those sick customers don't have the resource or time to engage in the legal process.
If you for whatever reason argue against any Government interference in business what are your thoughts in detail about the case brought against Rockefeller who controlled this entire Nation with it's predatory business practices. Would it be proper to be enslaved by a couple of shareholders then a Democratically controlled Government?
Keith, it's a moot point now....this was soooo a year ago....lots of info out there, I just don't want to read it again.
As for the arguement that consumers cannot buy what they want? there is two side to 'regulation' and you must also know that the gov regulates away your choices. Does not being able to buy accross state lines ring a bell? it's that type of thing.
I'm going to take it a step further....
Don't be insulted....
You have NO right to health care (insurance to be correct), none. If you afford it, fine, if not, you have no right to force someone else to subsidize it for you, and that's really what this law does.
You have no right to my money, Keith, none.
And I will tell you that I have not had heath insurance (it is insurance and not HC, BTW) since 1997 simply because I cannot afford it and I find it to be MUCH FREAKIN cheaper to pay cash as I go and for 14 years me and my family have done just fine.
I state that so you don't think that I'm on the top looking down, in fact, if you what the "thuth" on any subject you will always find from the bottom looking up.