Robin Obama: Hero or a Villian?

My family, which is conservative leaning, and I, a self described realist, have been debating the relative merits of a state imposed health care system.

Months ago, during one of these conversations, I informed a close family member that as far as I was concerned I felt that health care had to be reformed in this country and besides I, a working student, don't have health care and would like to see a doctor once in a while.

In other words I supported health care reform because I would benefit. I suppose there are many others that see it the same way.

Recently, I have revisited this from a more egalitarian perspective. Now I ask at what cost will Obama-care benefit me?
On one hand every human being has a moral responsibility to assist their neighbor as best they can. On the other hand can the state impose such a moral code on its citizens?

For those of you who enjoy a more theoretical scenario... Was Robin Hood a hero or a villain; to steal from the rich to give to the poor? While many instinctively respond that he was a hero, here is another perspective that perhaps will change your mind.
Historically speaking, the Robin Hood policy was applied to Jews in every corner of the "civilized" world. The Jew who was undesirable and must have achieved his/her wealth through usury or some other insidious means was forced to return some or all of that wealth to society. Sometimes this was achieved "legally" through a "Jew Tax" other times the Jews where simply expelled from the land ( England 1290, France 1305, 1683 Spain, 1492, Egypt, Syria, Libya, Morrow, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon 1940-1960) of course Jews were required to leave all their assets behind. Or Jews were killed (1640-50 Eastern Europe, 1910's Russia, 1940's Western Europe etc.), again leaving their "ill-earned" assets to the "oppressed masses and governments".

However like many of the upper-middle and rich of America, the overwhelming majority of Jews achieved their wealth through hard work, perseverance, and plan old innovation (for more on this analogy please view or read Niall Ferguson's The Ascent of Money, PBS). To legally take their wealth by imposing a moral requirement sounds good, but is in reality a reoccurring historical wrong. It is a form of Robin Hood thinking, the imposition of the majority’s desires on the minority.

It is a powerful argument and one that I once ascribed to.

As a Jew whose forefathers where abused by the majority the idea that Jew has been replaced with “rich-man” as the target of Robin-hood practices is abominable.

But why?

Why is it that the rich should not be forced to give to the poor? After all in Ancient Israel and today Jews are REQUIRED TO GIVE 1/10 of their income to charity. Muslims and Christians are likewise admonished to give to charity. Why not have a secular authority enshrine this in American law?

(This perspective holds true despite that face that the American public already VOLUNTARILY, gives disproportionately to charity (http://www.jewishachievement.com/domains/phil.html).

To this valid and important question the answer is clear.
Americans already give a tremendous amount of money to larger society. In Brooklyn, where I live, I know a number of people who live in free housing WITH CABLE! In other words the FED has already exhausted its "biblical" ability to tax.

We Americans with or without health-care should not be blinded by the Robin Hood syndrome. At the end of the day humanity was given free will, morality or alleged morality, cannot be imposed. Obama-Hood is not the way.