This post will undoubtedly be met with a complete misunderstanding of what these solutions would actually do for those who cannot currently get health insurance (namely because of costs, resulting ultimately from government meddling, which has had a domino effect in the private sector). In particular, many will consider the proposal below of “[eliminating] all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy,” as a flagrant attack on the poor, sick and disenfranchised, when in reality, it will actually have the opposite effect of what might be expected. To many, such a proposal seems counter-intuitive, but the incentive created for the poor will be that costs are lowered, making it affordable for them.
I just wanted to preface the intent here, since some seem intent on framing such a proposal as “evil conservatism.” Such an assumption by some, to me at least, shows a great deal of intellectual dishonesty in not dealing with the argument proposed here. Letting the free market work, and getting the quasi-Marxism out of the mix, will have drastic effects on getting better healthcare coverage for all, including the poor and sick. If you disagree, fine. But don’t label such an idea as evil when clearly the goal is making healthcare available and more affordable for everyone.
The solution to our health care woes is not to put more regulations or government control over this sector of our economy or to provide a public option which will stifle competition and create less incentive in the market. The real solution is to free it from the bureaucratic and government constraints, getting rid of the subsidies and red tape. This will inevitably lower prices, which will create the incentive for many more people to purchase insurance at a reasonable price that cannot currently.