Upscale wrote:

So you're fine to accuse me of ridiculous comparisons, but you feel
free to use them yourself? Grow up, you know damned well I suggested
no such comparison.

Costs are costs, regardless of the nature of the health care. And you were
the one that wanted to dance by saying:
"Big difference don't you think with things that can cause definite instant
injury and other things that may cause health difficulties over a long
period"? I was just following your lead.

Let me ask you. Knowing what you know now about increasing diabetes
and cardiovascular disease, if one single mandate could have been
enacted 30 years ago that would effectively and selectively
eliminated the bulk of these conditions, would you still say it was
undesirable? Knowing all the misery and strife that these two
conditions have caused to our society, would you still be sticking to
your "no government involvement"?

I have never said I am against all government involvement, and it is
rhetorically dishonest to try to support your arguments on that kind of
tactic. You seem to be having difficulty with the concept that opposing a
government mandate does not mean you oppose all. However, since you seem
locked into that position, do you support all government involvement since
you seem to support this mandate?


--
Dave
www.davebbq.com