I think in both cases, the driving force behind it is compassion to other human beings. Needless suffering is truly an awful thing. As I found out in Dying Well, which is an amazing book, is that sometimes extreme pain is so severe it can't even be treated properly. In some cases, medically-assisted suicide might be the best way for a very sick individual to take control of their own destiny.
In the case of mandating healthcare, it's not that I think people should have the choice of whether or not to participate in the system, it's just that the rest of us can't go on just letting our fellow citizens die when they get severely injured. It's just unthinkable.
So you're saying that because you, as an emotional person, cannot let me die, you are going to force me to spend my personal income on something I don't want? That sounds very totalitarian.
Also, I think this debate is a rabbit hole since it is a complete strawman. I would argue that, given the correct subsidies by the government and proper knowledge about health care, almost every person in the world would choose to buy a health plan of some sort. If you don't agree with that, you must have a strange view about how the vast majority of people make decisions.
> I would argue that, given the correct subsidies by the government and proper knowledge about health care, almost every person in the world would choose to buy a health plan of some sort.
I certainly agree with that, and the thing that is going to help us get to a system like that is a mandated system. Do you also think social security should be optional and when people get old and can't work they are SOL and left to rot?
People see universal health care as a single thing, unfortunately. Having experienced it first hand, I can say, when it works, it's fine. But when you really need it, it has the tendency to fall through, and you suffer for it. And suffer bad. Essentially, it creates a false sense of security.
