Namior, your comparison is rather flawed. It is not coercion for a representative to be elected who the minority didn’t vote for. It only becomes coercion when that representative under the thought of following the majority’s will (which I seriously doubt is the case when it comes to increasing taxes) enacts a law that requires all to pay a larger amount of their money to fund programs that no one in their right mind thinks is working effectively.

Also, why is it that when anyone opposes these government programs they are automatically labeled a hater of the poor and, using the author’s point, a “Scrooge”? I know many people who oppose these programs who give privately a proportionately larger amount to charity than most of these wealthy folks calling for higher taxes.

From another perspective, publicly provided health care for the poor is a service that provides many externality benefits. It keeps epidemics from spreading, it reduces long run spending for public services, and provides a social safety net (you still benefit from having insurance even if you don’t make a claim.) So the usual economic argument goes that as a non-excludable public good, you need coercive taxes to fund it to combat the free riders who would benefit but not pay.

So is public financed health care “compassionate”. Is enlightened self interest “compassionate”? I am sure that some support public health care out of compassion for the unfortunate circumstances of the sick poor, and not due to the cost benefit calculus. To deny that people act this way misses much of people’s motivation. Perhaps this is why classical economics does such a poor job of explained people’s behavior.