A non-letter to the editor.

While I continue to believe that “health care” is a poor, but necessary, phrase to describe the delivery of services normal people, who prefer to be well, would rather not have, it is because medical and surgical intervention, like fire suppression, criminal interdiction and resisting armed invasion are categorized as disutilities—not suitable to be distributed by the market, which gets people what they want.

Moreover, the Constitution specifically requires that agents of government are to provide for “the general welfare” and it specifies that the Congress distribute currency into the country to compensate citizens for the provision of necessary services. Dealing with injury and disease is definitely included.
Mr. Kilgore’s reference to fire suppression is apt. What he misses is that the object of fire suppression is to prevent it from spreading to adjacent structures and woodlands. Similarly, the object of medical intervention is to prevent the spread of illness and injury AND to promote the expertise of trained personnel. If the profession had to rely on persons such as myself, who’s only been to a doctor once in 46 years, there would be no progress in countering disease at all.
Insurance is a racket. Though, I will admit when our house burned to the ground, the company sent money to purchase the materials to rebuild.
Btw, the ACA has survived legal challenge because the dollars collected have been ruled a tax and the entity that issues the currency is fully entitled to decide how it comes back. Which is also why currency hoarders are liable to having that habit curtailed—to ensure that this public utility is actually available for everyone to access and use.
Hannah