Ask500

The question is neither biased, nor ignorant. It is meant to provoke some thought, and perhaps some further analysis would be helpful.

There is a difference between purchasing insurance from a company with a policy which covers specific considerations, for which one must pay a premium, and having the government supply coverage (through taxes=premium) for a policy which is beyond one's power to define the parameters of coverage.

Given that one is paying for government sponsored health care coverage trough taxes, one might conclude that this service is 'free'. Just as others are saying that coverage costs should be shared equally, like a condo roof repair or the costs of a military campaign or the costs of police and fire protection are all under the same umbrella of protection because "that's what we are paying for", health care coverage should be provided the same way.

This isn't what we might call a 'mixed economical' issue, it is whether or not you can get the level of care your specific health condition requires (and for which you are willing to pay a premium for), or whether the 'free' service being offered will in fact be adequate for everybody.

Thank you, everybody, for continuing to consider what is meant by 'free', when offered by the government.

I said it is faster because, when I don't have time for a close shave, I can 'get by' with a quick once-over as I rush out the door.

SOMEBODY has to pay the costs; doctors' (and nurses') time, prescription costs, hospitals, prosthetics, all these cost somebody a lot of money. I if elect to 'take', who is bearing the actual cost?