You see, that is just a weird argument. I make the case that government shouldn't force people into commerce and you equate that to murder, theft, speeding tickets, and drunks. What in the world does any of those things have to do with forced commerce?
Do you not agree that people who don't have insurance, and then show up at the emergency room for treatment that they can't pay for is irresponsible? Do you not agree that people who do that are running up the cost of your health care tab?
Why is it that it is OK to have laws to protect some of your rights from the misdeeds of others, but not other rights from the misdeeds of others? I fail to see a difference. If your argument is that everyone should self govern, and that with the lack of government the private sector will always naturally correct all misdeeds, then why do you accept ANY laws?
I'm not even going to humor the idea the government is the people or any sort of arguments that deals with this false premise. The fact of the matter is that forcing people to buy insurance is about lowering the rates of everyone else and making decisions they freely decided to take part in cheaper. You're basically robbing peoples liberty and their right to use their money as they see fit all because some people decided to buy a service. There is no justification for that. Just because you make a choice and it's expensive means nothing to me and I reason to consider any moves made towards me to relieve your situation as valid.
If others not having insurance force my health care costs up, then they are still robbing me of my money. There's no difference. Forcing everyone to have insurance lowers the health care costs of those who already responsible. This is actually an idea originally proposed by conservatives, and the only reason that they fight against it now is because it was implimented by liberals. If Bush would have signed the bill into law, most conservatives would be singing it's praises.
As for me, I think it's not such a good thing, I didn't support it and I personally proposed a more "free market" alternative to congress, but it's not nearly as intrusive, nor is it going to cause economic disaster on the scale that conservatives keep claiming it will. Let's face it, it's all about politics.
If I desire to be entirely irresponsible with my life, be that not going to the doctor, not buying insurance, not buying healthy food, not keeping my air condition in working order, or whatever, that is my choice to make and you have no justification at all to step in and tell me to do otherwise.
When you being irresponsible harms others, then it's time for society to protect the rights of others. the mandate does nothing to harm those who are already responsible, it only requires that the irresponsible pay for the consequences of their irresponsiblity. Thats why I say that it is actually a conservative plan, not a liberal one. It's based upon personal responsibility, and not living off the wealth of others.
