Point in understanding health care debate

I heard a very concise description of the differences regarding health care policy today. On the topic of pre-existing conditions , the Democratic versions of Senate bills include wording to force companies to accept new patents regardless of preexisting conditions. Here in is the brunt of the differences. Republicans identify that you cannot force insurance companies to take on anyone, by the burning home analogy. That is, you wish o prevent people from purchasing fire home insurance while their home is burning. Similarly, you want to prevent people from buying insurance when they are already sick.

Constructionistically, I agree that you should not allow pre-existing conditions when it comes to purchasing health insurance, but then again I do not believe in the idea of health _insurance_. rather, I think we must have health financing.

Not everyone's car will burn down, but everyone will get sick. Then again, not everyone will get the same diseases, but most childhood vacinations and all preventatve care is standardized. Also, everyone gets the cold. There is practically no escape. Perhaps insurance shoud only exist for the unknown portion of medicine.

That was a massive side track. I meant to say that Tepublicans rather not support te pre-existing conditions anti- discrimination, because it means essentially everyone mus be required to be covered. And this in turn means everyone who cannot afford to buy into the program must be subsidized or perhaps must receive some reduction in benefits or cost or reduced priority? At any rate, subsidy implies the gvernment has to shell out lots of money. At this point, the Republicans say financing is difficult, while some say taking money from medicare is a possibility.

That is the money puzzle.