Somebody has to pay for that care. Correct. I presume you say so because the alternative is not worth considering. Kudlow is suggesting that spreading the cost among the national tax base is probably the least intrusive, in terms of money, and the most likely to ensure that the care actually is paid for. There's some merit to that argument. Assuming that the same level of cost can be covered through charitable contributions is perhaps a bit idealistic.
The "Bernie Sanders argument" was your reference to "grossly enrich[ing] insurance companies," used as an argument against Kudlow's idea.
You're not addressing the context in which the comment was made, which was that the insurance companies won't be "grossly enriched," because the various employers won't negotiate on that basis.
Wow. Talk about completely missing the point. What I said was, "We cannot expect such people to be able to shoulder that sort of cost." In other words, they simply cannot afford to do so. They don't have the money to do so. They're not rich enough to afford it. It's not a question of "redistributionism," (rolls eyes), it's just an economic fact.
And so the question becomes, what are we supposed to do about such people?
Wow. I would expect a high school sophomore to talk like that. So again, back to that log in your eye....
Let's go back a step. To be unequivocally clear, I do not believe that any human on this planet is entitled to medical care. If they can't pay, they are not entitled to it. It is a service provided to an individual by another individual, and in every other aspect of human interaction the person receiving the service pays for it.
Now, the premise of this argument is that there are already 5% of the people who are responsible for 50% of all healthcare costs. They are either presently insured or presently receiving care. Regardless of whether they are insured or not, they are presently paid for by the currently insured. Hospitals don't bill the government (with the exception of Medicare/Medicaid). What they don't get from patients that don't pay, they recover from those that do. If there were some practicable way to do what Kudlow suggests (there isn't, by the way) then it would be shouldered by the taxpayer. There is no Constitutional authority to collect taxes on this basis. That should be the end of the story.
Like most "gimme gimme" leftists, you haven't even thought your arguments through before presenting them. Before you devolve into shrieking hysterics complete with crocodile tears over those who can't afford medical care, you should stop and think what this means. You are saying that regardless of their ability to pay, they simply HAVE TO HAVE medical care, and the rest of us will pay for it one way or another. Human biology dictates that the human body has a FAR, FAR, FAR greater need for shelter, water, and food, in that order. Yet we do not run around screaming about those who can't pay for that. People will die from exposure, thirst, or starvation long before they suffer ill effects from lack of medical care (excluding urgent trauma). Logically, if you advocate for medical care on this basis, then you must assume that the guns of government and redistributionism should allocate food, water, and shelter to every individual.
Do you disagree with that? If you do, please explain how this is consistent with your position on health care.
