All I can do is laugh when progressives make the claim that "free market" health care has failed in the United States. It is difficult to envision a market that is less free without having the entire system nationalized and run directly by the Federal government. The mess we have now is exactly what Austrian economics predict will happen with thousands of mandates, restrictions, subsidizations, etc.

"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it is Free".

Does the fact that we have 48,000,000 people with no medical insurance, mostly because they can't afford it, mean anything?

Additionally, it [the exchange] will decide how many plans will be included, and how they will be designed

You mean like requiring plans to cover children with autism? The horror! Or do you mean requiring plans not to cover abortions, the issue that blocked passage of this bill in the GA? Can't have it both ways, Justin. There's a word for folks like that, no?

Russ,

It would be very helpful if you would at least TRY to anticipate my responses. OF COURSE, I can have it both ways on this issue... that is, not have the exchange dictate healthcare and not have it subsidize abortion: I don't think there should be an exchange at all.

Oh, now you're against markets of any sort? Interesting to know that for you the objection to abortion coverage was really just a poison pill to kil the whole idea.

"Does the fact that we have 48,000,000 people with no medical insurance, mostly because they can't afford it, mean anything?"

Since the vast majority of those individuals are illegal aliens (or foreign nationals, as Joe likes to call them) to which nothing is owed by American citizens on both principles of fairness and financial sustainability - no, it does not. Being born an American citizen shouldn't chain you into a life of servitude to anyone who can defraud or sneak their way onto this soil.

P.S. Health insurance is not a necessity - it is a luxury. By definition, it is a losing proposition for most.

"the Obama administration has given Rhode Island another $58 million to work on its government-run healthcare exchange"

The only thing that would improve insurance coverage in Rhode Island would be to increase the number of insurance companies offering coverage in the state. That number is currently 2.5 for group plans (Blue Cross, United and Tufts - no offense) and exactly one (Blue Cross) for individual coverage.

As those who are constructing the RI insurance exchange are not claiming that it will accomplish this (in fact, just the opposite - dictating "how they will be designed" is an almost certain recipe to reduce the few companies we have now), this $58 million is a complete waste of tax dollars.

No, Russ, I'm against government-operated "exchanges" that slyly ease bureaucrats' ability to control the nation's healthcare system.

As for your "poison pill" assertion, I restate my desire for you to begin exercising your faculties for critical thinking in order to anticipate my responses. Opposition to a government operation does not require complete silence about how it is run once it comes into being. I oppose the idea of government-run healthcare exchanges. If they are to be implemented, it ought to be done through the actions of legislators, and in any event, they should not facilitate the use of public funds to support the killing of unborn babies.