If medical coverage is not a necessity, what is it?

[SlayerRondo]

richardhutnik said:

snyps said:

richardhutnik said:

snyps said:

richardhutnik said:
So, I would then question why you don't want to give up money to help other people.  Why is that?

 

Because medical coverage under the health insurance system is WAY too expensive to afford for yourself let alone pay for someone else's

My entire post was pointed an individuals who claim coersion and theft as reasons for not having government assistance.  I was arguing turning it on its head to get someone arguing coersion and theft to come out and say why they wouldn't give to help others.

you mean you were using sarcasm? i don't think your post is legible.

In response to the coersion comment, I wrote this:

If you are willing to give the money to help others, then it isn't forceably taken.  So, one can argue the problem isn't the fact the money exchanges hands, but you lack of willingness to give it up.  In this, it isn't theft either.  So, I would then question why you don't want to give up money to help other people.  Why is that?

One could go onto other aspects of what is really your stuff anyhow, but that is a different issue.

 

It wasn't sarcasm, but pointing out that the coersion (cousin to the "it is theft") argument goes away if a person willfully gives money.  So, I then asked, why the person wouldn't want to willfully give to help others?

How is the person's willingness or lack of the problem. Is the problem with a thief stealing a car the lack of willingness on the part of the owner to give him the car?

Should it not be if you're willing you pay and receive government medical care and if you're not you can abstain from paying for it?

Why do you support the model of forcing people to take part in something then make them willing rather than let the willing take part?

Forcing someone into something then trying to convince them that it's right seems backwards to me.