>>4
Neither sustainability of the business nor its profitability are what I questioned; I questioned the ability to a single force powered by taxation being able to support the United States system as it grows. In fact, the United States system is much more profitable for individuals in it, and provides more consistent coverage for as many people as can be accommodated, as it currently is than most of the centralized systems in Europe. The problem is that for people who use the business-system, not those who work in it, though that does factor into it, both the better treatments being produced and the insurance required to mitigate liability of the professionals and institutions carrying them out are gargantuan and risk outstripping basic affordability.
Additionally, misunderstanding my previous point like that risks being interpreted as an attempt to shift the conversation into an alternate topic.
what do you think insurance is!? Distributed risk!
What does that have to do with anything? the fact that anyone can get hurt and is then dependent on personally allocated or institutional health services is beyond question. The law did not apply if you were not employed as a sailor, which is a reasonable choice that could be made, and no one who chose not to be a sailor had to manage (part of) the bill, or at least as it was stated. In fact, you could stop being a sailor and find a different profession. This is more like an additional port fee or customs fee.
Do you have a proposal for a current-day nationalized system that allows me to opt out, does not penalized me for opting out, does not penalize or burden any private system that wishes to operate alongside it? Pending reading the actual proposal in writing, I will throw my hat behind such a plan.