California does have something similar, which we looked into when we were turned down by the thirty-seventh (or so) insurer. At the time we explored that option, we were told to apply to both MediCal (nope—the reasons are convoluted) and to our county’s program (yep), because our income was so dismal. The state pool will definitely be something we revisit later in the year to find out if we can get in on the action . . . that is, if there’s even a California government left to which we can apply!

Thanks, by the way, to everyone who has emailed their ideas. Apparently, I should have asked earlier for help, a lesson I will actually learn at some point in the future.

Does California have something similar?

My post was already too long to elaborate, but as I wrote, I’ve had a pretty satisfying experience with “government” medicine. My doctor (who was my doctor back in the gainfully employed days) is wonderful, and has managed all my appointments with specialists, etc. Yes, I’ve had to wait a couple of weeks for those appointments, but I was admitted immediately to the hospital the only time my situation was a true emergency. If I’m honest, I’ll admit to a suspicion that the high level of care I’ve received is in part due to being somewhat of a medical anomaly—everybody wants to get a look at Telangiectasia Girl. But it could be that I just feel like a freak.

The shitting half of your metaphor seems incontrovertible—unless you’re one of those people who shits carpet cleaner (I’m not)—but I don’t think the first half is quite so self-evident. I know you and I have differing ideas about what government should and shouldn’t do, and I’m not interested in convincing you I’m right. (I’m not sure I am right.) But it’s a fact that there are countries with governments that provide a baseline of healthcare for their citizens, and that this provision is seen, by many of those citizens in many of those places, as an adequate and welcome “fix” to the problem of healthcare. It’s not obvious to them that they are shitting on their own carpet, and it would likely take more than a little convincing to persuade them.

I’m interested in your mandate idea. I’ll have to think on that one.

I’m not wholly persuaded that economic growth should be the bottom line when it comes to things like healthcare (and the environment, for that matter). Obviously, growth is important—but I don’t think it’s “good” in and of itself, without any other considerations. Growth comes at a cost, and I think we should be cognizant of those costs in order to make wise and sustainable decisions.

Sorry—scatter-shot reply. Deadline looming.

Perhaps a law prohibiting the consideration of existing conditions? This doesn’t appeal to me either, and would still result in a mandated transfer of wealth from healthy people to unhealthy ones. But at least it wouldn’t increase any further the amount of GDP consumed by the federal government, which is the most reliable long-term measure of economic and political stability for a country that I know of.