This is what happens when people have grown up being praised in order to raise their self esteem, without having done anything to actually earn the praise. This applies not only to those demanding that the government provide their health care, but also to those in Congress who purport to enable the provision of such to them. They have no concept of the fact that there is a cost to everything. If they have been rewarded with praise without having done what it takes to truly earn such praise, is it such a surprise to find that they think that they can "give" everyone health care without regard to the cost involved in doing so?
Theirs is a world in which someone else has always provided something for them, without their having to "pay" for it, either in effort, accomplishment, or in a monetary sense. They have grown up in a world where their parents not only gave them praise without cause, but also bought them everything, never having the backbone to explain to them that perhaps "we can't afford it." They now are practicing what they learned in their childhood. They are inherently unable to tell their begging constituency "we can't afford it."
What we are seeing today is the logical result of these spoiled children's unrealistic upbringing. They have no concept of the actual cost drivers of health care in this country. For far too long, the true cost of medical care has been hidden from the general public by co-pays, employer-paid premiums, and other factors that have insulated them from reality. The great bulk of the cost has been paid for by someone else, and there has been neither need nor desire to know what is actually being spent.
Their sense of entitlement to the efforts, time, wages, and property of others leads them to declare "rights" that impose upon others the responsibility of providing such time, taxes, goods, and services. They justify these impositions on those who produce as "moral obligations." But there is nothing moral about stealing from one man in order to give those things stolen to the favored beneficiary of the stealing (governing) party. The inherent morality of an obligation resides in the manner in which the actions constituting such behavior are exercised. If the charitable, or giving, action is voluntary, and performed in the spirit of true compassion, without expectation of recognition, thanks, or reward, it is truly moral. That which is coerced through force, either violently as in robbery, or via the legal mechanism of government through threat of fines or imprisonment, can never be declared moral, no matter the good purposes claimed as the reason for so doing. The proceeds of such actions are no better than stolen goods, being given to those with whom the enforcers wish to gain favor. Those who approve, enable, enact, or enforce such takings are nothing more than thieves, robbing those who produce of the ability to make their own moral choices of whom to help with their own time, money, or goods -- in essence, stealing from them their liberty, the choice of how they may spend their lives.
As well, the takers' insulation from the real world concepts of supply, demand, and costs is surpassed only by their ignorance of human nature. They assume a static economy to which they apply their programs. History has repeatedly shown, however, that this is never the case. When a governing body imposes obligations that the governed view as excessive, the results are fairly predictable. First, and most commonly, the behavior of the subject population changes. More transactions are done as untraceable/unreported cash. As the imposition becomes more burdensome, the producers scale back their operations, creating less, hiring fewer people, and slowing the general economy, all in an effort to reduce the percentage of their lives the government is claiming a right to. This has less to do with how much money the government is taking than with what portion of our lives the government is claiming. This is a roadmap for economic ruin.
The second thing that can occur is that the producing class finally tires of the domination of the government, and openly rebels. This action can range from peaceful, civil disobedience to the extreme of outright violence. When the burden of government becomes too heavy, its representatives too unresponsive, its actions too offensive to a society of free people, it is not simply the right, it is the absolute duty of those same free people to take action as necessary to reclaim their own destiny and reassert themselves as the masters of their own lives and fates. What form this shall take rests entirely on the tenacity with which the oppressive governing institutions cling to their structures of power. I pray that the process is peaceful.