I'm not sure if you do or don't know, but the fact is insurance works by spreading the paying. It needs well people to pay of ill people. Without this, as I said, people when they need insurance most will be push off the insurance.
I'm quite aware of how insurance works.
It prices based on risk models for various groups of people.
For instance, a young male driver will pay a higher premium than a young female driver because it has been shown that young males take more risks with their vehicles.
It works the exact same with medical insurance with older people being the higher risk.
Of course, you just supported a bill that further drives the specific risk pools in the ground in favor of a regressive insurance scheme.
And I won't say personal choice doesn't play a role, but the more serious choices people do no matter what we do with insurance. They choose to smoke, eat poorly, not exercise regularly, talk on cell phones while driving, speed, and play with tools and weapons they are not proficient at. Doing so pus them in situations where they need care, and too many find they are not adequately insured to cover it. We don't turn them away, so someone else has to pick up the bill in an unorganized and ineffective manner.
There are many options, like exempting medical bills from bankruptcy.
We do it with student loans, medical bills are a higher priority.
It's not improbable to use this same standard.
Again, a universal insurer, payor would be best, but absent that, we really have little other choice.
You're just limiting choices and by force no less.
There are many choices that are behavior changers, you and others don't have the stomach to go through with it though.
Nationalizing medical treatment is a wealth transfer scheme, young to old, good behavior to bad behavior.
It's incredibly unfair to those who do take care of themselves and generous to those that don't.
It doesn't change behavior towards positive lifestyles.
Private profit, public loss is what your advocating.