I was asked a question: “Nelson, so you think people who earn more money than you are obligated to pay for your health care?”

My letter explained that I pay for my health care. Part of it is taken out of my Social Security check, and the other part I pay for by purchasing a supplemental plan.

So, I am going to assume that the questioner means the collective “me.” The answer is, “yes,” I believe that those folks who earn more than me should pay for health care for all, and I also believe that people who make less than me should be obligated to pay for the health care of all.

The concept of insurance is based upon the notion of a “pool.” If you don’t have a large enough “pool” to draw from, then insurance does not work.

Once again, Obama ran on a health care platform, and won, and both houses passed the bill.

I am also assuming that what the questioner means that he does not want to pay for folks less fortunate than himself.

This is a corollary of “Social Darwinism,” a 19th century notion that Darwin’s concept of the “survival of the fittest” should be applied to people, and it should be “every man for himself.”

It was a justification for the wealthy to have a lot, and poor people to have as little as possible, and yet enough to stay alive to work for the wealthy. I had hoped this idea had died with the New Deal and FDR’s castigation of the “economic royalty.”

Interestingly, few people complain about paying for public education. Most of us consider it a good idea to have an educated population and make it possible for all children to maximize their potential.

Somehow, if the questioner is one who does indeed support public education, he does not mind paying for the education of those less fortunate, but not for their health.

And yet, on a pyramid of needs, I believe that health would come before education. I hope that answers your question, questioner.

Nelson Strasser lives in Lakeport, Calif.