Suppose home owners insurance was so expensive that many could not afford coverage. Thus many would adopt to take only fire damage and take their chances on flood for tornado for example. If everyone got coverage for flood/fire/wind/property premiums would go down. Would mandating that all homeowners get total insurance be a good idea so that everyone could get lower premiums?

What happens when there is some sort of catastrophic event and the government comes in to help those that had insurance? Should they not help those that didn’t?

For Mr. Obama. Life insurance is a choice. But the state may have to care for the children if there is none. So should we mandate life insurance for parents? We can’t function with this sort of mentality in a liberty based nation.

While these examples strain the analogy they are appropriate in some ways. People don’t have to have health insurance anymore than they have to have life insurance. But they want it more. I certainly had health insurance when I was 20 to 25 but I never once went to a doctor or ER until about 30. The reason you wanted me “in the pool” is so that overall premiums go down.

I would have been perfectly fine to have to pay my medical IF I then needed it. And invest the money because it was unlikely I would need the coverage. That would be my choice. And in fact I would have opted for catastrophic only coverage if it was available. (i.e. nothing other than life saving treatment is covered.) I’ll pay for my own broken leg, arm, flu shot, or whatever.

The problem I have with taking away the liberty of one who would choose this approach is real. It’s also a reason that it becomes easy to “Harry and Louise” the issue. There is no universal coverage as there is no universal enforceable mandate unless it becomes a healthcare police state.

Let’s take it a step further. Instead of a ticket for seat belt violation have hefty fines that supports health care. People that don’t wear seatbelts raise health care costs. Same for smokers. Same for skateboarders. Same for motorcyclists. On and On. Why should those that don’t smoke, sky dive or skateboard be paying so much? The progressive would say because they have that liberty to take risk… :But I don’t?

The same liberty that allows the sky diver to take a risk allows an individual to risk nothing more than catastrophic coverage. If mandates were limited to that, I might be for it. If not, it’s just seeking to add those to the pool that liberty would say should not have to be if they choose not to be.

Abortion has been around as long as having babies. In humans and in all of the animal world. A miscarriage is called a “spontaneous abortion” and can be caused by the actions of the pregnant woman. In simple terms the government has nothing to do with any of the “choices” a woman makes with regard to taking a pregnancy to term.

We know the government could outlaw abortion but no law has ever stopped a person from breaking the law.

Comparing abortion to “FICA” or social security is absurd and trying to compare it to any tax, program or payroll deduction so demeans the gravity and all of the emotions a woman has to work through anytime her period is late that it is an insult to women and mothers.

Shame on you.