>Another way to look at it is that they wrote the bill and lowballed the number of enrollees in order to claim a less dramatic basis so the program wouldn't seem nearly as costly as reality dictated.
>
>Why would you do that to allow a program to run for only 7 months? Why would you create an example that opponents will use to try to prove that socialized schemes don't work? Occam's Razor says that this was a dumb screwup not a nefarious scheme.

So you're suggesting that politicians made a dumb screw up and underestimated the enrollees who would take advantage of "free" care by orders of magnitude. In that case they're too stupid to be put in charge of my health care.

>Absolutely not! The estate should be billed for services rendered.
>
>So you're advocating a system where policing services should be covered by taxes unless you need/cause additional services in which case you should have to pay.

When did I advocate "policing services should be covered by taxes"? ;) Budgetary concerns prompted examination into this very system in various communities some time back. IIRC the end-result was limited recovery due to the nature of those involved, namely criminals don't have money to pay for the services they caused to be used to catch and prosecute them.

>Why can't that be applied to healthcare too?

It already is, in the private sector. Unless your homeless, then us non-deadbeats pick up the tab of course.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07122009/news/regionalnews/hosp_itality_abue_178789.htm

Why do you want the government involved? Do you simply ignore the costs? Ignore the failures/lies of politicians? Ignore the fraud? Ignore the failures of previous attempts be they in other countries or our own states? Ignore the power grab?