I understand that, Sir, but I think we need to handle those who cannot buy into an insurance plan differently. They need to go into a high-risk pool, or go on a state medical coverage account, or something, but the two scenarios need to be treated differently.
There is health insurance, and then there is something needed for those who don't fit into an insurance scenario.
And herein lies the fallacy in the idea that insurance is beneficial in the least.
The moment is it forced into insuring the in-insurable, the price is so high as to be insurmountable.
All y'all are wasting your time, rearranging deck chairs. The problem is not government insurance.
The problem is the idea of insurance at all.
Inevitably, what will result is a very high cost, very high deductible insurance which will invariably and inevitably omit or limit coverage on expensive procedures. Socialist ideas ALWAYS lower all boats, because socialism ignores basic economic principles.
What we
had was as close to health-care-for-all that will ever be achieved.
People who could afford it had insurance to take care of moderate health troubles...
But if something truly awful happened, that coverage would cease to exist, because covering long term illnesses or unknown illnesses is literally and completely not affordable. In such cases, the poor bastard has to lose everything - basically crapping out and losing all his chips in the game of life... And then becomes eligible for coverage via public assistance and charitable organizations.
That's as good as you'll ever get, people.
when sh*t happens, you have to crash and burn. You don't get to keep all your stuff.
You can insure till the cows come home, but it will always turn out the same.
There HAS to be risk.
Risk HAS to have consequences.
Anything else is slipping an iron collar around all our necks.
