My central argument still remains, this country is not in good financial shape. Passing any kind of big spending bill like this will cause us more debt and more pain. We just saw what happens when the American public takes on too much debt and I would like not to find out what happens when our government takes on too much debt and overextends itself (if it hasn't already).

I think the ethical choice is not allowing the government to do this because they won't do it right and will kill any future attempts at letting people do it right. We may have a philosophy that is ethical in nature and not economic, but I don't believe economic forces will care.

First, I would like to say, I am a fence sitter on most major issues, including this one. I also, can say, that I wish we could cover everyone, but I can't claim to know how to do it any better than anyone else. There is a shortage of doctors, hence limited supply and nearly unlimited want. Not sure how this can ever be solved.

With that out of the way, there are a few factual holes. First, between 1900 and 2000 England went from being the financial, political and cultural centerpiece of the world, to passing those mantles off to the US in almost every respect. Yet, during this time period both US investors and British/UK investors received return on investment at the same percent down to a tenth of a percent (I am still looking for citation, it is either Robert Shiller or Jeremy Siegel). The UK had socialized healthcare for approximately 50% of that time and they were rebuilding their country from 45 to 55 if not longer. I believe England/UK is a bad example.

Besides, linking French, Greek, and English economic problems causally to their nationalized health care is anecdotal at best. The counter to this argument could be Belgium and especially Japan.

Next you stated, “When people are forced to to become socialist and pay taxes for services and programs they don't want or don't believe in, that is wrong and immoral”. This is a slippery slope that could never be used to justify government policy. There are plenty of pacifists and doves that would love to opt out of paying for defense, roads, boarder guards, etc.

Though I have made your argument many times about paying for schools (I don't have any children and I am 34), I know it is ludicrous to opt out of all programs I don't want to participate in. I would surely become a free rider. It happens now, even in private industry, at many jobs, you can't opt out of the health care benefits completely.

After getting excited reading your initial paragraphs, I was a bit disappointing to find that you didn't back them up with more logical arguments. I don't completely disagree with you, just in your form of argument.

I think the strongest argument against nationalized health care right now are the economic downturn and the complete and utter ineptness of the Democrats, I genuinely wouldn't want any of the bills I have seen. It needs to be logical and balanced. But, given the Hippocratic (Hospitals Treat Anyone/Everyone), we (the USA) are bound to a philosophy that is not strictly economic in nature, but ethical in nature. Therefore, I believe, though we are currently helping everyone (at least to the best of our resources), there may very well be a more economic approach, that satisfies these ethical obligations. Or maybe we will just continue down this path and all of us will go to the emergency room when we have problems. Then doctors will truly ration our health care.