>It's a perception, good or bad, right or wrong, that the government is sticking it's nose into personal decisions.

But in this case it's forcing a purchase and not providing an option on its own. Which, IIRC, was in the original proposition, but was forced out by all the lobbies. Makes me think they're afraid of competition while touting the values of the market.

>>With mandatory purchase creating artificial demand, of course they'll charge more.
>>
>>Just wondering, if current deadly embrace of insurance-doctors-pharma is so good, why were they so against the state sponsored insurance as an extra option? If it was so bad (as an idea), why not let it be created and then fail by having everybody opt out of it and go for the market proven for-profit options? What were they afraid of?