What is one con about the way health care is financed in France?

Isn't this the easiest way to handle the health care issue?

• If you are for it you will have more money taken from your check as an insurance policy so to speak if one day you are unfortunate and don't have health insurance. If you are on welfare you are automatically enrolled and you receive less of a stipend to pay for it. If you are against Obama Care you will be allowed a one time opt-out,you can't get back in and if you get sick and don't have insurance hospitals/doctors are allowed to deny treatment based on YOUR opt-out. I have insurance and would be more than happy to pay an increase in tax to have a safety net if I someday didn't have it. Just change the oath that doctors and hospitals have to treat everyone. Seems simple to me.I think it should be up to individuals not states to determine if you want it or not. Believe me if people knew they wouldn't get treatment they would buy it.

• Answer:

  That system would be ideal, if not having universal health insurance didn't come with other problems. For example, healthy people are less likely to get health insurance. This is because insurance companies can't be very sure whether a particular person is healthy or not (not even with a large questionnaire), so they won't know what rate to charge for each person. Naturally, they're going to charge a rate in between healthy and unhealthy. This is a good deal for the unhealthy, so more of them sign up, but a bad deal for the healthy, so less of them sign up. Eventually you end up with only unhealthy people having an insurance, which means either the prices go up and few people can afford it, or the insurance companies go bankrupt. Besides that natural tendency for the system to break when not everyone *has* to get insurance, there's a simpler problem: you can't stop to ask someone whether they're insured if they're in dire need of medical attention. You would be forced to treat them, even if they didn't have insurance.