You are talking like it is a great thing. On the contrary, the greater number of people covered lowers the overall health care costs for everyone.
Not true, it's a risk pool, the reason group insurance is so expensive is because the least healthy in the pool skew the risk model towards the sub-standard end of the spectrum. Even if you have a full contributory policy, it is costing someone alot of money.
This is very basic idea of risk management.
Correct, but you don't add risk to save money. Forcing people into health rolls artificially with no gap-loss possibility will shock the system, I am not a fan of pre-existing conditions.......but, if time was to be allotted for absorbtion of risk slowly it would be a better solution.
The deviation for individual health care costs (not including the elderly) in the US when we consider "accidents" is quite high which allows for much greater consumer benefit.
Also correct, which is also a problem with overconsumption of the group model, healthier people should go individual, however group has recieved preference through the years and it has skewed data to unrecognizable figures.
Equivocally saying it is "acceptable" not to carry any type of insurance regardless of how it effects others seems a little extreme to me.
Eh, if someone can pay cash for care or can work out payment plans more power to them. I still say they should have a major med. policy or figure out a plan to absorb the risk. But I am a fan of choice.
That is an empty statement. What about the costs that private insurance does not cover?
Need solid examples, every plan is different.