Or, alternatively, they don't have to worry about it because there is no health insurance tax deduction to force individuals to get insurance through their employer.
This is one reason I'm in favor of government health care: The profit motives of private health care favor denying care, since not paying out money is a good way to make money. So you have case where nobody will cover you for arbitrary reasons, or deny you payment due to a "pre-existing condition" or some other nonsense.
As for power lines.. well, there haven't really been any conclusive studies in this area. But you get the point.
Same-environment shouldn't be a factor, as long as the reasons the environment might impact health are/can be known.
I'd argue that nobody should be living somewhere that might have health risks involved (e.g., underground oil spills, toxic ash, a radioactive waste storage facility a block away from the elementary school .... in other words, williamsburg/greenpoint brooklyn).
This is an argument against all private insurance (home, auto, etc).
Would you favor the nationalization of all types of insurance or just medical? Doesn't auto-insurnace have the same evil profit motive?
What stops a business from giving her 75% of the $12,000 they currently spend on her benefits, pocketing the difference as increased profit, and leaving Sally to make up the difference with her dwindling discretionary income (despite a pay raise). I'm not sure how this help Sally.
I.e., Sally will go work somewhere else, or will unionize and kick their ass (ideally only in the figurative sense).
There's a lot of assumptions built into that outcome, but I take it that's the idea, if the numbers work out.