Replies

I see. Because by being alive, I am a liability to others. Ice cream and junk food and booze and daring sports contribute greatly to that liability -- and since the government is involved in mandating how I handle my "liability to others" in just being alive, it therefore eventually has a right to determine that I should not indulge in ice cream, junk food, etc. because of the possible liability it increases to others. There's no inbetween here, whether you like it or not -- either you create a scenario in which the government is all-powerful in arbitrating so-called "liability" with regard to individual health habits, or one in which it has zero power. Mandatory health insurance, a consequence of not choice but the simple fact of being ALIVE, is absurd and socialistic in the extreme.

No matter how it is couched, YOU CANNOT COMPARE IT TO CAR INSURANCE because one chooses to drive -- if you want to avoid car insurance, don't drive. Mandatory health insurance, on the other hand -- what, if you want to avoid it, you die? It is NO BUSINESS OF THE GOVERNNMENT whether or not I have health insurance. If there is a problem with being a "liability to others," then the system needs to change in the direction of more freedom rather than more regulation. Mandatory health insurance is a BAD IDEA and it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

There's no inbetween here

Yes, there is always an "in between" so that comment is automatically discarded. You choose to drive - get auto insurance. You choose to live - you should have health insurance one way or another so the rest of us aren't burdened with paying for your emergency room care. While I would not vote for this particular proposal and believe everyone should make these choices themselves I don't find this proposal as awful as you do. It is certainly better than Ted Kennedy's universal health care proposal.

It is NO BUSINESS OF THE GOVERNNMENT whether or not I have health insurance.

So long as Federal Law requires emergency rooms to accept you if you don't have insurance, than it very much is the business of the government. By not having insurance, you are free riding on the rest of us. Since when do libertarians support free riders?

If there is a problem with being a "liability to others," then the system needs to change in the direction of more freedom rather than more regulation.

Okay, but as governor, Romney had no ability to change that system. It's a FEDERAL law that requires emergency rooms to treat everyone. The Federal law set up a situation in which free riders were taking advantage of everyone else, and he addressed it in an eminently reasonable way.

Mandatory health insurance is a BAD IDEA and it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

On what grounds? I see nothing in the constitution prohibiting states form mandating health insurance, so it would seem that states would have the power to mandate it under 10th Amendment.