I am all for utilizing the private sector as much as possible for health care but one way or another all people must be provided good health care. Unfortunately it must be done in a way that provides for those that lack the disipline or means to provide for themselves. Even more unfortunate, that includes a large percentage of the population so charity is not an answer.

Generally, I despise entitlements but prescription drugs and good health must be made available to all people by whatever means necessary.

I am highly uncomfortable when the word "must" replaces "should," especially when accompanied by phrases like "whatever means necessary." I hear guns being cocked. It also presupposes that somehow if the government was in control, that it would accomplish this goal, compared to having a human need provided by the private sector. In cases where you can compare private and government alternatives in providing human needs, which has generally done a better job for lower costs?

When I was young, people went to the doctor, and paid the bills. I have the bill for my own birth. It was a couple of hundred dollars, and typed on a single small page. Insurance was for dire emergencies. Now, people have been trained to believe health care should be "free." Of course, it isn't free. It's paid for by somebody else, and the patient has no incentive to alter his behavior, nor do the providers of care have any incentives to control costs.

Medical care is a necessity. So? All people must eat, too. This does not lead to the inevitable conclusion that the government should be the sole provider of food, or that the private sector is incapable of feeding the American public, a task at which it currently excels.

And the idea that a large portion of the population is too stupid to take care of their own needs has no basis in reality.