The downvotes to your comments suggest that people here either don't agree with your argument, take issue with the way you're presenting it, or both. I'm not c

The downvotes to your comments suggest that people here either don't agree with your argument, take issue with the way you're presenting it, or both. I'm not claiming a moral high ground, I'm suggesting that there's a flaw in your reasoning. If something you do or want places an externality on other people, then you don't automatically get to claim that behavior as a right just because you wish to be left alone. The other people who are affected by the consequences of your actions have a right to a seat at the table, and they're going to tell you to grow up, because you don't live in a vacuum. That's not a moral high ground, that's just how life works when you live around other people. In this case, one externality is that when you or others like you get sick or injured without insurance, society picks up the tab. Society would rather not pick up the tab if they can force your wealthy employer to pick it up instead. If you want to make an effective counter-argument, you need to explain why your position doesn't actually place this cost on society, or suggest a different way for this cost to get paid. "But muh freedom?" is not a good counter-argument. "Why has society chosen to pick up the tab?" is a valid question, but is not a counter-argument.