What is wrong with this solution?

Your Idea I think is basically sound except its the unemployed and elderly

that will suffer the consequences as well as the young. And the loop holes in Insurance has

in the past fell real short in providing the right care needed. Especially catastrophic care.

Lets face it one way or another we the people will pay through tax's some where.

I do not personally mind helping those that need help. I just hate the waste the scams

and the fat cats getting fatter on our tax dollars. Or my family getting refused help when

they need it.Poverty begins at home as pappy yous-ed to say.

I think that the part you are not acknowledging ( this is about health care?)is the people you mentioned that will get no benefits. The truth is that no emergency room would turn away a old lady who is about to die, knowing that all she needs is some medication. If the ones who chose to not pay would follow through by not actually going to a doctor when they are sick, then,,,,,,, Controled by the private sector so the government won't steal any of the money???? dude c'mon. I see that this is hypothetical , since we are already past the point: the government already stuck their face into health care. I think that the main response to the problem should involve limiting the cost of health care and almost doing away with suing doctors..Just as silly as your idea? yeah I know. The reason that health care costs so much is because the insurance industry has it's guard up against sueing Docs, also because of the cost of research. Our system is part socialist(medicare/medicaid/federalsubsidies) and part capitolist/pharmecuetical industry is not in business to help people , they are in business to make money, same as doctors.. Very tough equation to solve. I certainly don't know how

You've obviously never dealt with insurance companies. What they do is charge ridiculously high fees, and then deny legitimate claims. They are profit-seeking, and therefore more expensive.

"Since it is controlled by the private sector, there is no fear that politicians will steal the money"?????? On what planet have you been living? Although there would be no danger of POLITICIANS stealing it, there is nothing preventing the companies from doing so.

No politician has stolen SS money. Over 95% of SS money goes to the intended beneficiaries, with less than 5% going to administrative costs. No private company is that efficient; they seek to MAXIMIZE their profits.

Social Security has been wildly successful and continues to be wildly popular. All it needs is a few tweaks.

You're trying to "solve" something that isn't a problem. As Bush found when he tried to destroy it, Social Security is VERY popular. Hard as he tried to get people behind his dismantling it piece by piece, the people rejected his plans.

If you don't want to live in a system where the will of the citizenry prevails, move.

We don't use it for anything. What happens is that "Citizen B" opts out, then gets sick, then wants the health care. Or they get in a wreck, and need insurance to cover the person's medical bills whom they hit. Everyone needs medical insurance eventually, whether they want to pay for it or not, and everyone will use it eventually. Even if you never go to the doctor in your whole life you benefit from the system that provides "herd immunity" against dozens of diseases like flu, plague, Hepatitis, and many others. In addition, when you do need care, you benefit from research and experience gained on others who have come before you.

Your system gives nobody any freedom at all, except that "B" can mooch off the system like some welfare cow while all the "A"'s pay his way.

I think your idea went nuts at the words "Low Monthly Fee"

The people who can't afford health care insurance are the ones most likely to buy into voluntary system, now using your knowledge of efficient markets have a guess what will happen?

I'll give you this example if you have a lot of rotten apples and you throw them into a pile are they any less rotten?

Using your logic they are

This voluntary scheme will be oversubscribed by the low paid and sick, the scheme will not work as it will be unable to pay for itself

Health care is a right not a privilege, just like education and justice

The rich have to pay for the government externalities from which they benefit, if they want a well educated work force they'll pay for it, if they want a law system to protect them they'll pay for it and if they want to benefit from a healthy society which gives dignity then they'll pay for it.

Margaret Thatcher stood beside these principals and so will I

The reads like the ideas farmers and ranchers formed local organizations that they called farmer or ranchers insurances. In order to make their farm bureaus or organizations work, farmers or ranchers paid dues to pay for security against crop failures or livestock diseases that could cost them their farms or ranches... You are describing private sector insurance... Private sector insurances have a history of exploiting their customers for substantial enough profits to motivate them to remain in business.

Conservatives have a history of pandering to the needs of big business. Liberals have had a history to seeing to the needs of the common people. Although it is hard to tell who the conservatives serve and who the liberals represent today, both the conservatives and liberals are focused upon netting profit for themselves without any concerns for the people.

Social Security will work for people who enjoy a high percentage of employment; but, it will not work for people experiencing over 10% unemployment.