How does competition create instability? Financial risk is internal, and based on the probability of people getting sick in a certain year. It has nothing to do with competition. Companies won't randomly go out of business, because their assets exceed the expected value of payments. This is true whether the insurance company has a large clientele or a small one. And also, chaotic healthcare problems in the 1900's? Could you elaborate? Healthcare was far more affordable in the past.
I used the early 1900s as an example of how the true free market unicorns the majority of people over in general. I suppose saying "industrial revolution" would have been clearer, my mistake.
Anyways, of course companies go out of business, it happens all the time. This is mitigated in our somewhat controlled market system, but it would be worse in a truly free market. This is fine in businesses that sell certain goods and services, but for healthcare it's disastrous as I outlined before. I'm not saying it would be total calamity, but it would be worse. Or, it could be more stable as a trust or monopoly.
The idea that the insurance companies will form trusts and raise prices isn't economically viable. That sometimes works in the short term (duopoly, oligopoly), but as more firms enter the industry, the fraction of profit received by each firm decreases, until it becomes advantageous to compete. Furthermore, there is no such thing as a "monopoly" without government. Monopolies can only exist in the long run with government coercion to back them.
The whole point of a monopoly is to stifle competition. The monopoly lowers prices due to their superior resources and market control, and the smaller operations can't keep up that kind of price war and drop out (see: Wal-Mart). Now of course these things don't last forever, but you seem to overestimate the forward-thinking capacity of the market. The recent crash is a great example, people kept pouring money into a scheme that was obviously not sustainable and everyone paid the price.
I don't understand where the idea comes from that "people" (oh but not you or me, other people!) don't give a poo poo about the poor and helpless. Most people with money have a conscience. The big problem, as I mentioned before, is that a lot of people trying to receive free aid aren't actually helpless. The welfare system is so bloated and unorganized right now that truly poor people would receive more money in a free market.
The fact that we live in a society where there are obscenely rich people and extremely poor people invalidates that right away. I don't know in what hippie commune you live where the rich freely open up their pockets for the legitimately disadvantaged to help themselves. The only reason most well-off people donate is for the tax write off. Frankly I don't know how to respond to this, it's so blindingly idealistic and unrealistic.
Some individuals will always be violent. That doesn't make it necessary to support a far larger, organized system of violence. Instead of being funded through theft (taxes), the same services (police force/firefighters/etc) should be funded voluntarily, just like any other commercial service. If you want to understand how that works, read "Practical Anarchy" by Stefan Molyneux, which is available for free on the internet. Or you could not bother, and continue to support a system of coercion and violence.
People are too stupid to look beyond their own base intentions of violence and self-service. It's an evolved state of mind that was necessary for survival, and we now live in a society where it's no longer necessary, but it's still there and it's not going away for the foreseeable future. If everything was voluntary, the good intentions in people would be overwhelmed by suspicion and mistrust. Money would be hoarded instead of spent on services we need (police, healthcare, etc).
But even if that weren't the case, we need a structured system of taxation in order to preserve order and speedy delivery of services by the government. As much as they suck at it it's better than the alternative.
Just understand that your beliefs are morally detestable. In a few hundred years, they will probably be treated with as much shock and disgust as the concept of slavery. The idea that initiating force is an appropriate way to solve problems is something we inherited as a species. In a few hundred years, we will hopefully have advanced enough to shed that belief.
Your beliefs are laughable. Sure, it's unfortunate that people are assholes and couldn't be trusted to help anyone but themselves, but it's true. You can cover your ears and blabber your nonsense as long as you like, it's not going to change. People need to have their arms twisted once in a while to do the right thing, it's the basis of all of the history of human civilization. It can be used for wrong or for right, but in this instance I can't see anything wrong with supporting the foundation of American society with a few extra dollars.
