<grins>
Yes, that's pretty much what I said. I know that under the Massachusetts system, most people are merely being
forced to buy their own health insurance. I know that that's not subsidized. I approve of that.
(And you don't have to tell us that it's not "free", because nobody has made that claim. Try reading along, eh?)
But it certainly wouldn't be a
universal health care system, if those residents of Massachusetts who previously couldn't afford health insurance would now be left out of the system. Which is why MassHealth coverage was expanded and health coverage subsidies were increased.
Now, according to
this statement, "The average uninsured Massachusetts resident will be able to purchase health insurance for $175 per month this spring based on new bids recently submitted to the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority."
See, my point is this: of course you can achieve something close to universal health care simply by making health care mandatory. But you will still be left with quite a number of people who simply cannot afford purchasing health insurance. By merely forcing people to pay for their own health insurance, you will never achieve universal health care (unless you're living somewhere where unemployment etc. doesn't exist...)
Therefore, you'll always have to incorporate some elements into such a system that are not in accordance with a "free market model" - elements that you earlier derided as "socialized medicine".
Now, I really don't care how you call those parts of a universal health care system. But it's pretty clear that a universal health care system wouldn't be one without those bits, and favouring a truly universal health care system while opposing those parts of it that make it universal seems to be pretty inconsistent...
