GeoffC, my objection is not based on freedom of choice whatsoever. The problem is cost, but the new law has chosen to address insurance. Insurance is a weak tool with which to reduce costs. The big private insurers have no interest in doing so, and the federal government is too wasteful to do so. My comment on state-run programs was not driven by the want for choice but from my mistrust of federal power. Don't get me wrong, I'm no anti-federalist, but I recognize it as a necessary evil. Economies of scale don't apply where the federal government is concerned. Also, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
But the heart of the problem is costs. Health care is too expensive. More people should have it. People should not be denied it because they are sick (oh, the irony!). People should not be denied it because they were born sick. But I say "health care" and I mean "
health care", not insurance. From the risk and insurance standpoint, expanding insurance to cover more sick people does
not reduce costs. It increases them. That's not a political judgment: that's how insurance (and supply and demand) works. Insurance is the wrong way to approach the problem.
I've tied this together poorly, so you may care to read
this Aussie. Maybe I don't agree with everything he writes, but he makes a lot of sense.