"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 3/23/2010 11:41 PM, Bill wrote:
"J. wrote in message
...

Suppose the government told you that you _must_ buy a Unisaw whether you
want one or not and whether you can afford one or not. Would you say
that
that was acceptable? If not then why is them telling you that you
_must_
buy insurance acceptable?


I haven't decided my position on this issue, but I see a problem with the
analogy above.
Everyone would benefit from having insurance--even if they can't afford
it,
but not everyone would benefit from having
a Unisaw. Think of the spending as raising the level of happiness
accross
the population, as a shared expense, as the cost of war presumably does.
Whether such a system would work well is another question entirely.

Whether it works well is irrelevant. Whether one benefits is irrelevant.
The issue is the power of the government to compel someone to purchase a
commercial product.

I didn't read many posts before I jumped in. But, what's the difference
between
what you described above and taxation? I think the newly proposed system
is intended to help the poor--yes, at a cost to those that are in a better
position.
But....as you know, our health care system costs are wrecking havoc on our
country.
FWIW, I have republican ideals but I am sensitive to the needs of the
mentally
disabled, for instance, too. Some folks need medicine more than they need a
Unisaw. One could argue that health is a more basic need than that of
machinery.
I believe we are to great a country to allow people to suffer because they
don't
have a health care plan.



If they can order you to purchase
insurance, what prevents them from ordering you to purchase a Unisaw?