Most of the people here appear to oppose the bailouts. Also:
Most of the “bailouts” are loans, most of which will be repaid. The unrepaid cost will be minimal, relative to the size of the economy. The portion which is not loans, is mostly to benefit middle and lower class people (mortgage modifications, extended unemployment, etc.)
The “bailouts” are to avert greater systemic damage to the economy; as such, they are benefiting everyone (for sure, we can debate if they are well-designed for that purpose.) keep in mind that the lost tax revenue and increased benefit payments associated with the downturn exceed the “bailouts.”
The putative beneficiaries of “bailouts” are already disproportionately taxed.
Their cost is minor compared to the cost of nationalized health care – or the Medicare bankruptcy which we already face.
“Bailouts” are not something we’re paying for – they are something designed to halt and reverse a severe recession. Their form is much more debatable, of course.
If a bailout is a loan, and it's eventually repaid then that is certainly ok, but isn't a subsity still corporate welfair, paid for by our tax dollars, and indeed, a socialist plan? And if subsities were supposed to do the same thing as bailouts, and prevent systemic damage to the economy, they are a failed policy.
And, if national health care is too expensive, how does it compare to the money spent on corporate welfair, failed weapons systems and other pork-barrel projects, and the billions in foreign aid we send to countries that hate us.
I think there is money for health care, we just need to get our spending priorities straight.