On Sep 6, 2009, at 4:21 PM, John Williams wrote:
Taking away my money against my will and limiting my choices for what kind of health care I can purchase is taking away my freedom of choice.
Freedom of choice is never absolute. And it is always limited by the need to balance that freedom with the identical freedom due to others. Your rights end where mine begin.
And yes, I understand that it's "against your will". You've made that point pretty consistently any time any sort of tax-based public service comes up for discussion. Ordinarily I shrug it off and chalk it up to fundamental disagreement.
But, does the punishment for not making it into the wealthiest 25% of the population have to be a death penalty? If not, what exactly *do* you propose as an alternative to public-option health care for people who aren't fortunate enough to be able to afford health insurance that will actually cover treatments?
Let them eat cake Maru _______________________________________________ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
