Hst_Fan:

the simple answer to your question...........because we are a free people and with freedom comes risk,

I beg to disagree. I can't shoot someone. I can't steal someone's stuff. I can't decide that I want to drive on the left side of the road. Certainly we prize our freedom, but there are lines that have been drawn and I doubt anyone other than a radical nutcase disagrees. The question, as always, is where should those lines be drawn? In no other circumstances is a person allowed to continue an action that is dangerous to those around them for no other reason than a philosophical ideal.

Claiming that "we're a free people!!" is simply a cop out that allows a person to avoid thinking about an issue in a constructive manner. Conservatives are just as guilty as liberals when it comes to this particular item, they simply differ in the topics that they feel should sacrosanct.

Hst_Fan:

if you want to trade your freedom for security I am sure there is a place for you amoung the neo-cons.

Yes, it's all very easy to quote some trite phrase coined by Ben Franklin. But, why should I have the freedom to not be vaccinated and thus risk thousands (if not more) of people but not have the freedom to smoke pot or marry another woman? It seems a very silly place to draw a line. Why do you feel people should be allowed to do it presuming that you don't think anarchy is a valid form of governement.

Hst_Fan:

I do have one question for you, is child care covered under the public option too?.........

Personally I think that childcare should be covered under some program, provided the parents involved are either working or going to school. It would lead to increased productivity across the board. But, the "children are a punishment wrought by god for having sex!" folks will never buy it. It's best to work on health care so no one has to die from an easily prevented disease because they are unlucky enough to not have insurance.