>Of course it's a free country. That doesn't mean there are no rules or that we can just make our own. If we want to drive a car, we need to pass a test and get a driver's license. If we want to practice medicine or law, we have to pass certification tests. There are rules (laws) about keeping wild animals, making excessive noise, littering.

Who suggested there should be 'no' rules? I'm talking about forcing someone into a medical insurance plan they want no part of for whatever reason.

>There are a great many things which are considered to be in the common good. This is how civilized societies work. The obligation to do some things together does not eliminate individual rights.

I do not buy the common good argument because of historical facts. The idea of everyone working towards the common good as applied to health care falls apart for the same reason that communism falls apart. If people who work harder get no more benefit that those who work less eventually those who work hard will work less and everyone suffers. You can see it right now in Denmark. They are referred to as the "happiest place on earth" scale. But when you dig, just a little bit, you discover that their existence is fairly mundane because everything is provided by government. There is no success because there is no failure. There is no desire to achieve because the reward is the same as those who do nothing. 60 Minutes did a piece on this last year : http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/14/60minutes/main3833797.shtml

By having low expectations, one is rarely disappointed. To me that's no way to live.

I posted before that the 2008 World Series of Poker world champion is a Dane and during the 3 month hiatus before the final table was played he tried to move to Britain in order to avoid the massive tax hit he was about to take.

>>The ken word is forced. This is a free country, yes?
>>
>>>I think that you didn't understand that Jake doesn't care (emphasis mine):
>>>
>>>I have a question? What about the 15 million who choose not to be insured? Many are young and healthy and feel their money is better spent elsewhere. What about the millions who carry only catastrophic care for the same reason? Why should they be forced to subsidize the old and/or unhealthy?
>>>
>>>>Because at the same time you guys would be contributing to the care of my family that includes several people with long-term medical conditions. And we'd all be contributing to the care of people with really devastating conditions. The larger the pool, the easier it is to spread the risk and keep the overall cost down.