universal healthcare

[Jester]

There is a difference. If you want to have the privilege of driving a car, then you can be mandated to own liability insurance, have a proper registration on the vehicle, and be tested on knowing how to drive. If you don't want to buy insurance, then no one is forcing you to drive the car in the first place.

Nobody is forcing you to buy health insurance, either. If you don't want to buy it, then don't earn enough income to cross the threshold beyond which you would be fined for not buying it. (You don't have to pay taxes either - just don't own anything, earn anything, or spend anything.)

Not realistic, you say? Not a real option? So is not driving, at least in most states, for most people.

Interesting choice of state. My states congressional representatives were more unanimous than Massachusetts in opposition to the war, including both our Senators (Wellstone and Dayton). They are one of the states who are generally opposed to Obama-care, as it will probably mess up their own version of universal health coverage.

Massachusetts just came to mind first. Certainly there were others. However, in my defense, what you say is not true: Massachusetts had a much larger share of their representatives vote against the war. Minnesota just had both Senators.

As Brad DeLong never tires of pointing out, Obama-care is almost identical to Romney-care. You couldn't have crafted a more "moderate Republican" proposal if you tried - no funds for abortion, no public option, no hint of single payer, almost nothing contrary to the interests of health companies at all. Massachusetts likes their health care, and I suspect the rest of the US is going to come to like their very similar care quite soon. But "we've got ours, screw you guys" is not a great argument against health care reform.

-Jester