which keeps for profit insurers involved. But, it would have been impossible to go to a single payer approach and tell health insurance firms that the business of health insurance was fini.
I'm assuming you prefer a single payer approach because you said:
"I am against this distortion that dictates we buy a for profit product at the discretion of our employers"
.... which perfectly describes the system we had without HCR where we were completely at the mercy of your employer as to who you would be getting insurance from... and of course, at the mercy of the insurers who deny coverage as soon as you get 'too' sick.
Then of course, with the system in place before HCR when the health insurance was too expensive to afford you just went without medical insurance. Oh boy! At the rate we were going, in about 10 years we would have been approaching 40% of the people not being able to afford health insurance, meaning they would be going to the hospital for medical care. And we, the taxpayers, would have been footing the bill (through Disproportionate Share Payments - payments to hospitals to cover the cost of providing care to people who couldn't pay for their care) as well as through higher premiums for those who still could afford private insurance), - for medical care rendered in the most expensive way it can be done.
The approach which keeps private insurers in the game means that if you don't want the private insurers to deny coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition - the insurers can only do this if everybody be is in the pool.
= new reply since forum marked as read
