But in a system that covers everyone, the policy doesn't run afoul of economics - people are covered and contribute from the time they are healthy to when they get sick and need care.
That depends entirely on how it's set up. In state-run systems, for example, you tend to get restriction of supply, with exchange driven by perverse incentives. Government workers and agencies have no particular reason to value customer service, and so often that is neglected in favor of the things they
do have incentives to value.
And the problem in our system is that policy that doesn't run afoul of economics means, in reality, that YOU, just like me, are just a job loss and a sickness from getting f'd by the system. If your wife gets cancer, and you lose that job you have, what are your options? ..... In the recession, about 8-9 million jobs evaporated... It's kind of unbelievable you phrase it that way - you must be young and believe you're bullet proof and haven't seen some of your smart and hardworking friends say, get cancer, or heart disease, and cannot work for months and months. If you can't work, how can you keep a job, and if you have no job, how do you afford insurance for that cancer?
I spent several months unemployed in 2013, with a wife and three small children (including an infant). It was a humbling, stressful, experience that I wouldn't recommend to anyone. My option was pretty simple - once I hit the point at which my old insurance no longer covered me, I swallowed my pride, and put in for Medicaid, so that my kids would at least have
something (though Medicaid kinda sucks). Fortunately, I got a job shortly thereafter, and could drop it. But that's the option. If you lose your job, you can go on Medicaid, and keep coverage.
Continuing from above - what you mean by "free ride the system" is suffer a common setback in life,
No, what I mean by "free ride the system" is "attempt to live at the expense of others by not paying premiums, but still seeking the benefits of coverage."
Unless you have an ACTUAL mandate (tied to things like jail time, or fines in the tens of thousands of dollars), you can't have guaranteed issue and community rating without creating a tragedy of the commons and adverse selection, because people will rationally follow their incentives, and all attempt to live at the expense of each other.
Well, millions and millions of those who work a full time job cannot afford insurance, millions more would like a full time job but can only work part time with no benefits, so your preference is everyone is above average in an above average full time job paying above the median with full benefits, like I'm sure you get at work. But that's impossible, actually. Someone will WORK to wait on you and your family at the restaurant after church on Sunday, and your preference is to say, "F you if you get sick - get a better job, you irresponsible moocher WORKING to deliver me my food and drink." Same thing to the guys building that new house of yours, or working on that remodel of the kitchen and bath. "F you moochers! Be responsible and get a BETTER JOB!"
inches bridge of nose: I am 34 this year. I have been above average income precisely three tax years. I've been that waiter.
I have no idea why liberals have this weird, compulsive,
need to depend on an image of people who disagree with their methods doing so because they have active antipathy/disgust towards others.
Here, maybe if I reverse it.
"Sure, and the reason you want single-payer is because you DON"T CARE if our elderly suffer, if our cancer patients die. Your preference is **** YOU, SICK PEOPLE, STAY ON WAITING LISTS UNTIL YOU ****ING DIE, BECAUSE YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN ****ING SICK."
Now. Did that sound to you like an accurate depiction of your motives? Or did it come off as disconnected and moronic, and make anything else I attempted to argue
afterwards less credible?
precisely.
