Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Okay, here's the difference. Get cancer in 1778 - die. Get cancer in 2009, probably gonna live. So, yes. The bill in 1778 wasn't as big, but you were dead so it didn't matter. In 2009, the worst thing that can happen to you if you have a "freak occurrence" is NOT huge medical bills. The worst thing that can happen is that you DIE. I prefer the free market system that funds the innovation that allows more and more people to live longer and more productive lives, as opposed to the "pain pill" option that government healthcare will ultimately become.

Since modern health insurance didn't come in to existence until the late 20th century, how on earth did we get so far in medical science for those first 150 years without the "constitutionally-mandated", government-involved healthcare? By your rationale, we should have had the same medical standards and practices as Washington and Franklin until health insurance came into existence. The facts don't seem to jive with your assertion. The question is not "what was it like before health insurance?" The question is "what was it like before the government got involved in health care?" The first question above maintains the spirit of the constitution, the second is where the constitution gets squashed.

Oh, and I didn't say "fuck" so, well, now I have. Just trying to maintain the spirit of the dialog.