UPDATE: JULY 29

EXCERPT from July 8, American Thinker article:

…[Medical consumers] would not be placed in a one-size-fits-all insurance plan, but could choose a plan more closely suited to their needs. For the normal-risk person, this would be a cheaper plan. For those with higher-risk, the plan would be more expensive. But, through last-priority loans, everyone will be able to purchase the plans they need.
…

POSTSCRIPT:

The last sentence above is probably an overstatement. While, with respect to revenue, last-priority loans will help, whether they will enable everyone to purchase what plans they need is really another question, and depends a lot on the definition of “need.”

The sentence also assumes that the implementation of such a policy would be on normal-risk persons and higher-risk persons alike. That is certainly one possibility. But there’s also another – one that is also evenhanded, but more limited in its application of last-priority loans.

For the purchase of medical insurance premiums, everyone could receive an outright subsidy, based on the expense of policies for normal-risk persons. Any assistance beyond that “base subsidy” – that is, any additional assistance for higher-risk persons could come in the form of last-priority loans. So such higher-risk persons would receive the same outright subsidy that everyone else would receive, but for assistance beyond that outright subsidy, it would come in the form of last-priority loans.

This option would enable such a policy to be tested in a more limited way before thinking of applying it more broadly.

AN ADDITIONAL PROVISION:

In addition to the collection measures that were discussed in both the June TAC 5 and July 8 AT articles, there could also be the option of a special tax for medical debtors on any bequests they make to irrevocable trusts, or other reportable gifts or donations.