The ironic thing is that people still have to die whether they get health insurance or not. Death is unavoidable. And in the past, if you got cancer, it killed you and no arguing. But now that a few scientists have done something noble (far from all of them) and decided to fight disease, they have the power to give you a reprieve from death (hopefully so that you can live honorably in your extension).
Even though it is something morally good, it is not something natural. And you do not have a right to it. You do, on the other hand, have the right not to pay someone who has taken a good knowledge and decided to do something bad with it, like extort you. But I do not consider expensive medicine as much extortion (although that is certainly a factor) as it is the result of the way people have decided to appropriate property.
The doctor was only able to gain his knowledge and skill because wealthy entities paid for the research that backs his procedure. A garbage man, on the other hand, is considered too unimportant to be given an amount of property comparable to the research and devices involved in such a life saving procedure, and so he cannot trade what he has for what he needs to save his life. The garbage man works just as hard as anyone else, and he is just as human. But some humans do not consider him equal to themselves, since he could never have done anything like invent a cure for cancer. And so while a few people, who are considered more important and better (mostly by themselves), have the amount of property they need to trade with the doctors who can save lives, the others who are not considered important enough to have that property do not have enough to trade. The question becomes, 'Should we force those who we consider more important to give up some of their property so that people who we consider unimportant can live fuller lives?"
I know a few doctors, some of them mostly good and some of them wholly evil, and in neither case can they save you from death. They can only delay it. Not to sound morbid, but science does not save lives. It merely prolongs them.
Some people would take advantage of that power to extort the unhealthy. Others would only require a just and due payment that you cannot afford. In neither case did the doctor cause your problem, and should you die because either an evil doctor would not help a poor man or because a good doctor simply COULD not, the doctor did not cause your death. Not to sound communist, but the way property is appropriated caused your death more so than the doctor. And it did not cause your death at all, really. It was merely the disease.
Now there are two solutions. 1) Take the property from those who have it and give it to those who don't so that all men "created equal" can have full lives, not just those considered important enough to save. 2) Let nature run it's course on the unimportant and just save the elite, if that can be done, by any trade of material wealth.
I think the new health care bill is an attempt to do the first, in an effort to meet some "greater good". However, it is not right to steal from men. On the other hand, what we are talking about just amounts to taxation, involuntary charity. And most people would agree that that is ok.
