>You keep insinuating that I support Obama's healthcare plan.
>
>Because fundamentally, you do. You've qualified it by saying (correctly) that we as a nation cannot afford it "at present" - but you've not stated any fundamental opposition to it.
>
>I believe that Obama's plan (or any national health care plan) is not only impractical, it is immoral for a government to hold that the needs of others are an automatic reponsibility of me, or you, or anyone. There is nothing you've said that's fundamentally at odds with George Bush saying he'd use the mighty muscles of government to push someting through.
>
>In a much freer market, we would all take home a larger portion of what we gross, and would be in a better position to fend for ourselves. I'm sorry, but those who still truly cannot, must rely on the charity of others. (And yes, you may quote me on that).
>
>This is what Austrian economics refers to as the "impossibility of economic calculation" in government-controlled markets - it compromises the ability of individuals to maximize their planning.
>
>So please explain to me who is supposed to pay - and I'd be curious to know why it would succeed any better than the colossal failure in the state of Mass.

No. You are not reading what I write then if you can say what I fundamentally believe and get it wrong. I hate repeating myself and I believe you have search capabilities so if you really want an answer, do a search of my previous posts and you will find many on that very subject. I should not have to keep reminding you that supporting healthcare for everyone and supporting Obama's plan are not the same thing. I know what I mean when I write. If you decide to interpret it your own way that is up to you but I'm done discussing it.