And I have asked you define what you feel are the "morally legitimate" functions of government, and you have yet to do so.


And people who do that often end up costing the taxpayer more money than would have been spent by the individual on the insurance to begin with. Unless you feel that society has no moral imperative to take action against treatable disease and injury, which would be another way to reduce costs that you currently pay in taxes and in health insurance premiums.


If your concept of self-ownership is wrong, then you have imposed your beliefs on others. You did not get where you are today solely through your own actions; society played a part in that, as much as you may want to believe otherwise. As part of living in this society, it is part of the social contract that we give back to the society, and paying taxes are one way we do that.

It strikes me as similar to the people who won't donate to the Red Cross, because their money won't go solely to Haiti earthquake victims. The Red Cross is going to do everything it can to take care of the needy in Haiti and everywhere else, regardless of their funding. (Obviously there have to be limits somewhere.) So when you donate to the Red Cross, you fund the Red Cross, not their operations in a particular place. When you pay taxes, you pay into the fund; you don't get to pick and choose which services you want.

That said, I still want to know what your ideal set of services is.


Smoking affects more people than just the smoker, unless he does it in complete solitude in a place no other people ever go.

No one has banned the sale of trans fats. What has been banned is the sale of trans fats as food. People can sell rat poison all day long, but if they start putting it in Oreos, I think it's legitimate for the government to do something about it.

I will admit that I'm generally not a big fan of telling other people what to do, or being told what to do myself. I am not a fan of drug laws, nor am I a fan of the restriction of civil liberties of any nature. However, I don't see universal healthcare as a restriction of liberties, rather as an expansion of them.

That said, there are times when the needs of the many or the whole do outweigh the needs of the few. I would personally prefer universal healthcare that is paid for directly by taxes, rather than the somewhat onerous mandate to purchase health insurance independently. I recognize that as politically impossible. I gather that you would be opposed to that, as well.

I continue to claim that you are currently paying money towards other people's healthcare now, just through circuitous paths. With this bill, that money not only goes towards helping those same less fortunate people, but also gives you a personal benefit, unless you choose to reject that benefit.

As I see it, there are only a few valid arguments against universal health care:

1. The government should not provide for anyone's health, regardless of circumstance.
2. I'm willing to spend more money in order to make sure that the government doesn't provide any direct health benefit to anyone.

I was thinking I would come up with three or four, but I think all the other ones eventually simplify into one of those two.

Which of those do you subscribe to? Or, if there's another that I have missed, please share.