That's a great letter. I was particularly fascinated by this part of Mr. Spencer's critique of the letter, where he says "Seems the guy not only forgot his Hippocratic oath but also the law." He has apparently redefined the Hippocratic oath to mean that Dr. Hsieh is required to provide medical care to all comers at whatever price, including zero, that they specify. In effect, he is saying that by taking the oath, he and every other doctor have made themselves slaves

Hi posted a reply to Jim Spencer's article here:<http://tinyurl.com/2ak3ds>.

This time I took a different approach. Instead of standard debate format, where I refute the other person's claim and assert my view, I ask questions about the other person's views. This may not be very effective on-line, but I'm willing to try something different and break the typical patten of on-line discussions that more deeply entrench people in their original views. This is somewhat inspired by a technique that Michael Cloud calls "the reverse," which I have posted here:<http://selfownership.googlepages.com/persuasionTheReverse>.

Here are my questions:

1. If a "single payer" health care system provides "provide quality products and services at low-prices so it is accessible to all," do you advocate such a system be good for other products? For example, food, cars, haircuts, shoes, etc.?
If so, is there any historical precedent for this?
If not, why not. Why is health care different?

2. I suspect that a common answer to question 1 is that health care is different because it is a "right." Common reasoning behind this is that people can die from lack of medical care.

* Yet, since people can die if they lack food, shelter, and clothing, are they also rights?

* If they are rights, what do you authorize the government to do to those who peacefully refuse to cooperate or participate in satisfying these "rights"? Would this at all infringe on their rights of self-ownership and freedom of association?

3. If participating in and paying for this "single payer" program is compelled by law, that is, everyone must be "insured," what do you authorize the government to do to patients, doctors, and those who fund it who peacefully refuse to cooperate or participate?

"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state."
--From unanimous Supreme Court ruling which struck down laws against interracial marriage in 1967's Loving v. Virginia case.

It should be no leap of comprehension to realize that, under our Constitution, the freedom to purchase (so-called) health insurance, or not purchase it, resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state.

Congress may not fetter us with intimately invasive, mandated, parasitical umbilicals, simply.

Duh.