You can't ensure that everyone will always be covered, even in a universal system. People will always find a way to opt out of the system. So with that in mind, I accept that as a fact and subsequently come to the conclusion that the only way to keep prices down, quality of care up and access to care up is by letting the free market handle the issue.
Just my opinion, though.
ahhh ha...
Because the market might encourage competition and COULD force down costs that way... you also have competing pressures to keep costs down by not covering people who would cost too much to cover. Look at airlines? more people want to fly, but in order to cover costs the quality of service drops and the inclusions become fewer.Airlines are a bad example because they've always been
heavily subsidized, even to this day. And there was deregulation in the '70s that
brought down prices.Well, to me the real issue is that insurance has a disincentive to provide coverage to the people that need it most. Since you know, they're insurance companies. It wouldn't make economic sense for them to insure someone they already know has cancer or something. It's like buying flood insurance after a hurricane.. Except you know, everyone gets sick or hurt at some point. That's why Americans need a comprehensive system. It may not be "optimally efficient" economically but the alternative is horrifying to me. Plus you know, containing spread of disease and all that in the event of emergency if you want to go the utilitarian route.
Well it's worse because as I've pointed out americans actually have had had unusually long wait times (only canada ranks worse), yet people keep repeating this idiotic talking point when it can be debunked with a 1 minute google search. Maybe it was true
in 1993, but it's not now.
