We don't live in a world where you can truly make your own choices about your body which affect only you.

If you choose not to get health care (or you're poor and cannot get health care), then you will be less likely to seek treatment for any health problem unless it gets BAD, in which case you go to the emergency room. So, if you're a poor man... and you have a few irregular heart palpatations, you ignore it... then three months later, when you collapse, you're carted off to the emergency room.

When I was somewhat younger I went for a decade without health insurance -- I couldn't afford it. Unless you are a fool, or you assume that I am one, you have to assume I had my health cared for during that 10-year period. I went to doctors and paid for their services out of my own pocket, without the government or anyone else being involved.

The difference between Crispy Jimmy's debt of $1 million-plus NOW and the and after a robust public option will be what? Either way, you (I don't live near Crispy Jimmy, so he doesn't affect me) will pay his medical bills. You'll argue that this will be cheaper, because he'll seek treatment earlier. I believe it will be more expensive because there are a LOT of Crispy Jimmy equivalents out there, and they'll start seeing a doctor every time they stub their toes. So having a handson approach isn't going to lead to us spending less on health care -- we'll spend more, because more people will seek treatment when they would probably have been ahead to take an aspirin.

But I'm all for seeking another option -- as long as it doesn't REQUIRE me to purchase something I may not want; does not take control of my individual health decisions; and does not violate the Untied States Constitution. None of the proposals on the table meet those three basic requirements for my support.