> This article makes a good case for the abolition of health insurance.
Yes.
> If everybody had to pay for medical care, medical care would need to be affordable to survive.
How would people with zero income afford it?
Yes.
> If everybody had to pay for medical care, medical care would need to be affordable to survive.
How would people with zero income afford it?
Which charities have the funding to cover a $1M NICU stay?
My kiddos were born the day before the third trimester and spent two months in the hospital. Staff it at minimum wage, cap the costs at just the stuff used, and you're still talking a lot of money.
What you can't be sure of is the real cost in terms of resources, and how that would be accounted and paid for. The price of your childrens' stay, to you personally, could be far less than what you originally paid personally if healthcare was not reliant on private subsidy. You would also likely be subsidizing the costs of other children staying in the hospital through public subsidy using your tax dollars. I reckon that last point is where a lot of people in the US get hung up.
I am making the claim that the cost will be prohibitive to handle via charity, especially as a national healthcare strategy, as proposed upthread.
I do not think charity makes up a particularly signficant portion of that cost, no.
That's not charity!
Not according to any common definition.
I, too, can win every argument if I get to make up the definitions.
> compulsory collective charity
Compulsory makes it not charity. That's a tax.