So, what was the point of all that rambling?
You americans now have to opportinity to define anew what should be important in your society. To decide what is your 'right'. You have arguments on both sides of the issue and it's an important issue. It's important to discuss it, it's important to discuss about what values are important and it's important to be informed before you commit to a path.
I don't accept this premise. Someone's political beliefs are not the same as the manifestation of a society's moral beliefs.
That is true and it manifests in your society in many paradoxical actions - on a local, personal level as well as on a global, geopolitical level. I don't want to elaborate because that will only invite hate speech. A rather harmless one: Freedom is (as I understand it) one of the american key values - yet you have the world's highest prison population, even higher than russia, which has plenty of political prisoners.
Politics is merely a way for a society to determine how to act as a whole. Political parties claim for themselves to fight for a certain set of values and goals and promise for a vote to accomplish their objectives. Occasionally it's wise to check if the party of your choice still acts upon their promise of if their values are still the same as yours.
When we frame the argument as you suggest, it simply lets the takers rationalize their support of policies that confiscate property from one group to give to themselves.
I suppose you hint at communism? Is that what a public option sounds like to you? Taxing is confiscating property?
In the United States, wealth is certainly concentrated at the top. On the other hand, 40%+ of Americans pay zero net federal income taxes.
I never understood how that can be. Are 40% of americans unemployed or illegal immigrants?
Under our current health insurance system, 13 out of 15 people have health insurance and nearly all of them pay for it either through their job or on their own. Under a tax-paid system, it changes to 9 out of 15 paying for it because 6 out of 15 people don't pay for federal taxes.
HR 3200 doesn't state anywhere that private insurers will be outlawed. I can't point you to the exact page where it doesn't stand, but I'm pretty sure. Further, Obama stressed the point that the public option will be an option. You are one of the 13 out of 15 people with health insurance and are happy with it? Keep it.
What I'm not sure about is if you have private insurance you don't have to pay the extra health care tax - like in germany.
I also don't know what happens to the non-illegal americans that don't pay taxes (due to reasons I don't understand yet). In germany, social welfare pays for the public health insurance. And yes, it's a drag on the federal budget, which gives heavy incentives to the state to get them working again.
I find it troubling to see the proponents of tax payer health insurance trying to take the moral high ground. Government programs are neither moral or immoral (they're not supposed to be anyway). They're supposed to be utilitarian.
They are advertised as moral. They usually stop being moral when you have a different opinion than your government. Let's say there are at least two different readings in operation Iraqi Freedom.
Having a belief doesn't make you moral. Actually doing something does. People who pay no federal income taxes who support having their health care paid for by other people are certainly not any more moral than a person who does pay taxes objecting to having their money taken and given to someone else.
If both sides act on their beliefs then both sides act moral - even if the other side disagrees. This is not a statement anyone can refute. But this again comes down to the values - for only if you act according to your values (whatever they are) you act moral. Moral behaviour is highly subjective. Values on the other hand are absolute.
Everyone can ask himself this question: How many Little Match Girls are you willing to save?