>>>>>Well, in the Netherlands people are forced only to participate in the BASIC insurance. All kinds of extra care is optional. How about such a system?
>>>>
>>>>I'm fundamentally opposed to the concept of mandating that an individual purchase health insurance.
>>>>
>>>>In addition, I think it's a little soon to judge the system. As I understand, the Dutch system was last reformed in 2006 the same year that Commonwealth Care was adopted in Massachusetts. I do not feel there has been enough time to accurately asses the systems. Both are showing cracks and it's a matter of can they be fixed or is there a fundamental flaw in the concept? I honestly do not know. If, in time, the system demonstrates an ability to bring in free market principals while providing acceptable care at an affordable price, I imagine it will take off like wildfire, regardless of my opinion. For me, empowering the citizenry is the best way to achieve success.
>>>
>>>Why must everything be 'free market'. Because it contains the word 'free'? Are you free to choose your own body and brains? Perhaps you'd like to be, but nature has decided differently. Now tell me, do you disagree here with nature, that you're opposed to the concept of mandating an individual that it is forced to live with the body and brains that nature chose?
>>
>>Forgive me but I don't know if you're attempting a word game or are you actually challenging the free market concept. If it's the former I think Marcia's answer regarding plastic surgery is appropriate.
>>
>>If the latter then I believe in free market capitalism due to it's overwhelming success throughout history in encouraging innovation and creating staggering economic growth.
>
>Okay, let me restate what I answered to Marcia. The example I chose may be far-fetched, but the point I tried to make is that 'freedom' is essential in some cases and less essential or even impossible in other cases. It is also often the case that one group's freedom has a negative, not wanted, impact on another group. And how about the group's freedom to decide that it is okay to mandate all members of the group to participate in a public service?
>
>Why this/your focus on freedom of the individual?

Individual liberty, above all, is at the heart of a free and civil society.

>Aren't justice and equality (to name two) worth as much or even more?

Without liberty, tyranny makes the rules, a few become more equal than the others and they decide what is just.

>So far what I already wrote therie. Let me add: 'Free market capitalism' is not the same as 'freedom for the individual'. I thought you were talking about the freedom of an individual to not buy any (medical) insurance product. So, what is it you want to talk about?

You started by asking "Why must everything be 'free market'." I assumed you wanted an answer. As far as the individual quersion, I think I covered it above.