Since we agree there is no free market in health care, it seems we have two options (we could pursue both, but they lead to different conversation threads). We can map the steps to get us BACK to (or toward) a freer market. And we can decide what to do here and now.

Seems to me, given two “public” and no “private” solutions at hand, the choice is between a Medicare-like public option that “competes” with the insurance company and holds down their price gouging; or a maintenance of the status quo. But do you really want to use free market rhetoric to maintain that status quo?

But, do keep in mind that some people do not want insurance. They think they will not get sick or they are willing to risk it. As a young person in my twenties I thought I might not die (ever). I would say things such as “if I die…” To a person who doesn’t even think they are going to die they also think the chances of them getting cancer (or other equally horrible disease) are very small. They know if they get really hurt the hospital will be forced by law to treat them. So, if you are in that position would you rather spend one hundred bucks a month on health insurance or satellite tv, or a cell phone, or internet connection, or whatever?

A lot of folks don’t have coverage because they would rather keep the money.

Some folks are very rich and don’t need to spread out the risk over their lifetime. Economically it makes more sense for them to self insure.

Some don’t have insurance because they relied on gov incentivized employer policies that ran out when they got too sick to work. If the gov hadn’t interfered they would have bought private policies that would still cover them. (The insurance companies make out like a bandit on that idea pushed by liberals – employer pays. Why? Because then the insurance company knows it only has to cover people who are not too sick to work. Those people are a lot cheaper.) Of course you can’t force a company to take on a new client with a pre-existing condition. They would go out of business in a month. Would you be surprised to hear that a car insurance company would not take you on as a new client if your car was already wrecked? But, if people had their own personal policies they paid for you could sue the insurance company for fraud if it did not cover as soon as you got sick. Anyway, who would do business with that company? Lesson here – GET YOUR OWN PRIVATE POLICY (and if you say one word about not wanting to pay extra for it, then you know darn well why people choose not to get coverage.) Seriously, trust me on this, I learned the hard way. And the sad thing is that it would have been cheaper for me to get private coverage than what it cost me as my employee contribution.

Some don’t have insurance because they took the gamble that they would not get sick and then did. No one likes to lose a bet, but it happens.

Some lost their jobs and feel that is an expense they can do without for now. Again, they are choosing to gamble. Gambling is not a bad thing. We gamble all the time. I am not saying that choosing not to have insurance for a time may not be the best idea, I have no clue, but it is a gamble. Sometimes gambles pay off.

Some cannot afford it. (These people do not make up the majority of those without health care, the majority choose not to afford it.) These people deserve charity, not entitlements. I would personally rather help out people on a case by case basis and give them money to get heath care, not health insurance. Insurance companies make enough money.

So the answer is that for the most part insurance companies do offer a policy at an affordable price (with the exception of all those mandates that do price some out of the market). People just choose for many reasons not to buy it.

Peace.

The guy wants to tax the liberal Democratic base!

Priceless.

Do you think they will ever figure that out?