I'm curious about something. Do our stanch principals of supposedly being strict capitalists (I'll define that loosely as no government intervention) and not socialists also apply to health care? After all, I hear this same argument from my Congressman and friends when I bring up universal health care. It's wrong on principal for the government to get involved because that is socialism, and we are American capitalists by Jove! We need less government and not more, and individuals should take care of themselves, not the government!

Of course, that argument ignores the fact we have one of the largest socialist medical programs in the world in Medicare, and that our entire health system is already socialized, as others pay for the care of the uninsured in one way or another. It also ignores the fact there are thousands if not millions of talented people who would love to quit their jobs and start their own companies, but cannot because they are tied to a job due to health care. Removing the worry of health care could create vast wealth and more jobs because it releases pent up talent into the market. In fact, one could argue that big business would like to see the status quo in health care, because they can tie down workers and reduce competition. But of course, we can't have universal health care, because that would be socialism.

And, if we claim to be strict capitalists, then when someone shows up at the hospital with no means to pay, they should be turned away, and left even to die, because after all, helping them with others money would be socialist. Right? And we can't have that. Hey, it's black and white. If the government shouldn't interfere in financial matters to save jobs or investments, it shouldn't interfere in a hospital's decision to turn away destitute patients.

Boo...my name is Doug