> why don't you believe in a free market for health insurance? Forcing people to pay into a health insurance is kind of scammy - let's say that I have a genetic condition that is certain to kill me rapidly at age 30. I want to live my life to the fullest, and I'd rather not be forced to buy health insurance that protects me from things like adult onset diabetes, alzheimer's, cancer, parkinson's, etc, that I'm just not going to get. Why should I be forced to pony up for other people's healthcare, too?
Don't you think that your argument might be somewhat flawed if the most plausible scenario you can come up with is this?
I'm terribly sorry for you if you don't believe that protecting the rights of minorities and corner cases is important.
If you don't believe the section about minorities, then you are pulling a denial of science that is far worse than any climate science denier. There are two 'canonical' heterozygous recessive diseases that are covered in every high school biology textbook - cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell anemia affects mostly people of west african descent. Cystic fibrosis mostly affects people of askenazi jewish descent. Sometimes I wonder why do we have high standards of care and treatment protocols, and are racing toward a cure for CF, while sickle cell anemia even has, an admittedly crude, known treatment (for a decade now) that still has languished in regulation. Why don't we have better research on SCA to figure out how to treat it?
...and the way to encourage research into SCA is to make sure most people that suffer from it are unable to pay for whatever treatment gets developed, by denying them healthcare? You've made the point that some diseases disproportionately affect minorities, but the step that gets us from "unaffordable healthcare"=>"treating more minorities" seems lacking.
Don't you think that your argument might be somewhat flawed if the most plausible scenario you can come up with is this?