Tundra: In this one instance, you're right, the government is seemingly advocating for my viewpoint -- but in any discussion of the larger issue of weight, health care and prohibition, my point still stands.

I don't see your viewpoint that charging one person more than another because of weight is "fair." Who is a greater cost to the system, the overweight person, or the person who rides his health-producing bicycle to work in heavy traffic, hang glides, or does some other "healthy," but also risky, behavior.

The difference when it comes to the public option you support, and the primary reason for my opposition to it, lies in individual freedom. If I find my state's requirement that I carry auto insurance too onerous, I can construct my life so as not to need a car, and hence not to need car insurance. I don't have the option of doing this with my body. Currently, under the rules that obtain today, I can have health insurance or lack it. As long as I pay my own bills, how I manage my own health is my own business. Add the government to this equation, and my health and how I maintain (or choose not to maintain) my health becomes a matter of public policy -- my very body is "commons." I don't desire that to be the case.