Facts are now a ringer?  No, I did not throw in a ringer, I just laid bare the poster child of this whole debate is a sham.  A self indulgent lazy ignoramus that wants to be coddled cradle to grave.  And that is being unfair?  Sorry Stevendedalus, I would throw out a snide remark at this point, however I know you are not that gullible.

And that is what it all comes down to.  No facts, just emotions and "think" - not understand or know.

Better check with a bankruptcy attorney.  My wife is a paralegal in the field.  Let me give you a hint - they all do.

WHoa!  Nice jump there.  From one anecdote to all americans, and you probably did not even pass go.  What's next?  Able to misquote everyone with a single word?

Yea, and his achilees heel.  So far, Mass has locked up a lot of law abiding citizens, overspent (by a factor of 10) the program, and is crying poor mouth and "more taxes".  But the latter is just Mass, and probably not related to the boondoggle.

Not a jump. You try to characterize those going through financial disaster because of medical catastrophe as "A self indulgent lazy ignoramus that wants to be coddled cradle to grave". Simply not true. If the average income American is having trouble paying for full medical coverage than the problem involves a lot more than you suggest.

Untrue. Shows that you don't even know what the penalty is for non-compliance. So go look it up real quick so you can find a way to backpeddle.

I in no way state that the Mass. plan is a good solution, but in fact think it was bad. It does nothing to reduce the high cost of medical care in that state, a state where the costs are well above the national average. It is a perfect example of how our political system is failing. It should be no surprise that Romney got more contributions from insurance companies than Clinton did as the primary season was gearing up.

No backpedalling, only hyperbole.  I know the penalty is just a fine.  I was just being sarcastic.  But since the sarcasm tags did not come through, good way to hold me to the truth as well.

Still, when we are talking about Bankruptcy and affordablitiy - it seems that Mass is just making the problem worse by penalizing people that perhaps cannot afford it (do you know all the expenses these people that do not want insurance have?  I dont think so).

You should expect that of me by now...lol...or atleast a reasonable explanation since the truth can be hard to find within all the propaganda that is being cast upon all of us these days.

You can lead a horse to water - but you cant make him drink.  Same thing here.  It is a contributing factor, but that is due to the fact that no matter how fool proof you make a systems, teh fools will always break it - they are ingenious when it comes to screwing up.  WHy?  No risk.  Thanks to the nanny state.

SO the real issue is not a medical crises, but just a population that has been taught there is no down side risk so they act like there is no tomorrow.  And when tomorrow comes, they are featured on the news as the poor victims.  When in fact they are the perpetrators, not the victims.

You can always find exceptions, but the majortiy are not like the poster child you see on TV.

No, they are just as (well, not quite but almost) nanny as the democrats for citizens.  The Current Wall Street Crises, while it may look like republican due to constituencies, can actually be traced directly back to Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer.  That is not to say that Republicans have not been stupid before, but I dont recall them blaming democrats when it was their interference in the already passed regulations of the industries that caused the problems

I'm fascinated to know why it is that someone with a higher amount of income isn't on average likely to be living in a nicer house than someone on a lower amount of income. That is, if you have 2 identical people, earning the exact same amount, and one has health insurance and one doesn't, then the person who doesn't has more money to spend (initially, before the hypothetical medical emergancy rears it's head). Thus it seems logical to say that on average that person is going to be able to afford to live in a nicer/better/more expensive house. I fail to see how pointing this out is a "cheap trick". The house could still be in a slum, since I'm talking about the relative 'niceness' of the two houses, not the absolute values.

Ultimately it's about risk and reward though, as I mentioned before - if you don't take insurance you get to benefit from the full upside of your risk (i.e. if you don't take insurance and don't get any medical bills, you keep the full 'profit' - the amount of money you would've been paying on the insurance). If you're proposing limiting the downside (capping the payment), then you'd need to restrict the upside (or else it's unfairly penalising those who do take out insurance relative to those who don't, in effect), which basically means you end up with a compulsory health insurance system - either take out private health insurance, or take up the state-provided one.

It traces back to both democrats and republicans......Unfortunately FOX edits their stories to make the flock think otherwise.

Bankruptcy, however low the percentage nationally--and I question it is as low as you say--50% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious to Stevendedalus.

But I would also argue with StevenDedalus about pre-housing crises numbers.  if you have some empirical numbers you can offer.  And remember, having medical bills for those filing bankruptcy is not justification.  I have medical bills and I have insurance.  And if I get to the point of filing bankrupcy, the medical bills will be in there, but may or may not be the straw that breaks the camels back.

Not so far. But then how many people are we talking about?  Numbers.  If we are going to deprive 300 million people of their rights because of 100 people, dont you think there would be a better way to do it?