will, I'm not talking about anything like prisons in the slightest. Let me elaborate my point and perhaps make it clearer:
An individual, for whatever reason, finds himself without insurance. He applies to the state fund. The state takes the next insurance carrier in the queue (as a part of the benefit of writing health insurance for anyone in the state all carriers join the pool) and assigns that carrier to the individual who then underwrites the individual and assigns them a premium. The state then pays a significant portion of that premium with the individual paying the rest. The individual thereby has healthcare coverage.
There are some big pitfalls that even someone like myself who only knows enough to be dangerous about health insurance can see. Namely, is the individual treated as such or is there a greater plan in place that is accessible? Is there a deductible or retention in place for the state? How do you pay for it? Is there a cap on the coverage? There are others beyond this, but these 3 seem good enough to start. The carrier has to administer everything, make the payments and negotiate the terms with the providers. The state takes the financial burden. The individual has the coverage and, at least theoretically, contributes.
I don't know where your prison analogy came from, will. Honestly, that question disturbs me because I thought up to now that I'd done a decent job describing what I had in mind, but apparently I wasn't even close.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
|