Dear Charliehall,
In light of your comment, and being that I believe you are an intelligent individual, I would like to address a question to you:
My income is slightly above the income limits for government insurance (JerseyCare, etc). I purchase insurance, and therefore go without things that I consider luxuries, such as vacations, nice cars, high-end electronics, etc. I personally have no interest in “help” from the government for this, particularly the specter of the public option. I know families from both the UK and Canada who have come to the USA for more timely medical testing and treatment, and pitied them for the apparent deficits in their respective countries that necessitated them making such a trip when in ill health. Regardless, I am thankful I can purchase insurance, and don’t think the government should be sponsoring my health care so that I can have enough left over to buy a nice car, high-end electronics, or eat out.
Anyone making a bit less than me is eligible for government health care assistance, such as JerseyCare (I know the numbers for eligibility). So why would I advocate for the government to sponsor health care for people who are not poor enough to be eligible for JerseyCare (or similar in other States)? Why would I want my taxes to sponsor health care so that people in my position can take trips abroad, spiff up their homes, buy a nicer car, eat out at restaurants, or purchase more expensive clothing? Insurance is a necessity, the above items are not. Why should taxes go to help people pay for non-essentials?
If someone opts to purchase a flat-screen TV, nice car, go to fast-food joints frequently instead of cheaper homemade food, take nice little vacations, etc, that is their choice. My taxes should pay for their choice? As I said, the truly poor are already eligible for the health care programs.
Can you shed some light onto why I should want taxes to sponsor individuals’ choices?