Forcing Americans to purchase unwanted goods or services is nothing new. If someone is caught driving without a seat belt or driving without insurance, he is fined. In short, he is punished for a non-act. But there is harm caused by these non-acts. They cause physical harm to the non-actor and monetary damage to me. The question becomes - is there harm caused by the lack of health insurance?

Who pays for major operations on a non-acting person who, through early detection, might have only needed to take medication? We do. Who pays for the non-acting person who shows up in the emergency room with the flu? We do. Who suffers and potentially dies because of lack of health insurance? The non-acting person. What of the child of the non-acting person, not yet old enough to make his own decision as to whether to act or not? Doing nothing is doing something. Our courts have forced people to act. People, through religious beliefs, were doing nothing to save their child's life. The courts stepped in and saved the child.

To stand on your soapbox and claim you just want to protect the rights of the non-actor is pitiful. There will be no wealthy non-actors. What is truly shameful is that the reason people will be non-actors is that they will be forced, as they are now, to make a choice between health insurance or food and shelter. We are paying for it in a roundabout way anyhow. Why force someone to suffer needlessly? Giving someone affordable health insurance will save me money and save someone's life. Instead of going deep into the Constitution, just read the preamble. Let's promote everyone's general welfare and have one of the blessings of liberty be health insurance.

Ed Truncale

Erial