saxitoxin wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:What made you think I was making an analogy between compulsory auto insurance and compulsory health insurance?
because you did
Metsfanmax wrote:I was merely commenting on the incorrectness of the statement that Night Strike is forced to participate in the health insurance market
It was not an incorrect statement. The scenario you describe ("buy it or get out") describes an obligation [take action A or take action B]. The alternate scenario ("buy it or don't") describes an option [take action A or take no action at all].
The concept of "take no action at all" is meaningless. In this and any other case, 'inaction' is really just a name for a different choice. To be concrete, in the case of auto insurance that would be "continue to be able to hold my job and pay auto insurance so I can get to work," say, versus "give up my car and also my job." There are always consequences to any of these actions, so choosing not to participate in the auto insurance market is itself an action. Your reasoning about Night Strike currently living in the U.S. applies to the fact that he owns a car as well. He
does have to give something up to avoid paying for auto insurance. The implication here is that you are drawing false boundaries by using the word 'obligation.' This can be seen easily by recognizing that Night Strike is not simply limited to "buy health insurance or get out." There are other options, such as "choose not to buy health insurance, and be fined or jailed by the government."