[Ghoulish Delight]

I agree that wanting to toss the whole thing out over the issue is dumb, and the way he stated his disapproval is dumb. Won't argue that.

As for the difference between this and auto insurance, among other things, in some sense there IS a public option for auto insurance - public transit. There's also the fact that the mandate for auto insurance is about making sure you don't fvck someone else over (except for no-fault states, the requirement is that carry insurance that covers the other person's car, not your own), as opposed to covering yourself, so there's a different set of reasoning for it. And, most importantly, auto insurance companies make business decisions that might mean that some individual might, in service of increasing some exec's pocket change, not be allowed to drive their car, while medical insurance companies make those same business decisions at risk of costing people their lives. So I think there's some more justification for being rather opposed to something that bolsters that system and stands to continue to reward them for making those business decisions.

But yes, Olberman's reported stance is a bit of dramatic hyperbole, and I am definitely in favor of doing SOMETHING to get more people covered as opposed to doing nothing. I just don't think that forcing people to pay for insurance, when the whole point is that they can't afford insurance to begin with, makes a lot of sense.