Even if it’s not for profit and it’s just a sharing pool your share would need to be way higher if we knew that you would be taking a big chunk of everyone’s contributions no?
So why would the inverse be true for healthcare? All the healthy people would pay less than the unhealthy people? If the system is designed correctly, we all would pay enough that we all get coverage. Full stop. If we didn't, it would basically be "for profit" even if it was government run. Or, at least as I inferred how you envisioned it from your comment.
This isn't a reflection of you or your comment, but it makes me think. I'll never understand why my neighbors in America seem so obsessed with a "fair share" and ensuring that no one takes more than them. They're so worried with people exploiting the system that they happily let people die whose only fault was getting sick. Ironic for a nation who claims to be the largest Christian nation.
I happily pay my taxes to what I believe are in the common good. Education and stability are huge ones in my mind. My neighbor has kids and I don't, but I happily pay to help his kids go to public school. Why? Because I want them to be educated, thoughtful and productive members of society. Not just for them, but for me as well.
Even beyond self good though, I just can't ignore the sick. That families have to suffer a fathers cancer while simultaneously wondering how they'll pay for it is sickening to me. This doesn't sound like something a "Great" country would do. Christians confuse me.
I think there is a coming fight over whether insurance can pool & price discriminate based on other things too, like healthy eating or active vs sedentary lifestyle. Eating junk food & laying on the couch your whole life has always been high risk but now with technology it could be measured & priced.
It really just becomes a poorly implemented version of general taxation though. Funding health and social care from taxation is of course not a new idea...