Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
Scott Weiser wrote:
: A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

: Query to Scott, who claims:
: ============
: the whole point of my statement in re health care is that it's wron to
: COMPEL someone to pay for another's bad habits, bad genetics or bad
: luck.
: ===========
:
: Scott, why is it NOT wrong to COMPEL someone to pay for another's bad
: habits, bad genetics or bad luck in areas other than heathcare? If it
: is not wrong to do so in areas other than healthcare, what might those
: areas be? Further, how/why do you make the distinction?
:

: Well, first, I said it IS wrong to compel someone to pay for another's bad
: habits, bad genetics or bad luck in re health care. This does not imply that
: it is otherwise acceptable to compel someone in other areas. This is the
: logical fallacy of the extended analogy and is a red herring argument.

Scotty;

First, I'm guessing "wron" is "wrong"... right?

The concept behind all insurance is some people are paying for someone
elses claim... otherwise, we'd all be paying cash every time we visit the
doc for anything... surgery too... same with car insurance, homeowners
insurance... life insurance...

You, your company (or your trust fund) pay $'s hoping that you will pay in
less than you use in services... We the taxpayers also help fund this because
Uncle Sam makes it a tax deduction for companies that are paying for all or
part of a employee's health insurance costs...

It's the same with taxes... when it comes to road taxes, smaller trucks
subsidize larger trucks, smaller cars subsidize larger cars like your hummer
(if you still have it) when it comes to paying for our nations roads.


If everybody had to pay their own way, this country wouldn't be worth
defending because you would be defending someone else.

If it is the Law of the Jungle, then it's the same law for EVERYTHING.