> No body goes to the doctor because they want to.

This isn't entirely true, there are entire industries catering to the worried well, eg expensive precautionary full-body MRIs with unclear scientific backing, whatever it is Bryan Johnson is doing and selling these days, etc.

And exactly what counts as need flexes and changes depending on circumstance and who is asking. "Do I need a doctor for this" is not a question that everyone answers the same way.

Expanding to undocumented providers is probably ripe for abuse. Although perhaps abusable either way.

What stops someone from saying “I’m an undocumented provider with 500 kids. Pay me 500 x AMOUNT”.

Public schools have residence and identity requirements. What’s an undocumented childcare provider going to have?

This is a common misconception. For asymptomatic adults there is no proven benefit to regular "checkups".

https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.36756

There are certain preventive care procedures that are proven to be effective based on reliable evidence. Everyone should get those, and for anyone with health insurance they're covered at zero out of pocket cost.

https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage/preventive-care-benefits...

The majority of healthcare spending goes to chronic conditions caused primarily by lifestyle factors such as substance abuse, over eating, poor sleep, and lack of exercise. The healthcare system can't deal effectively with lifestyle problems. Those are more in the domain of public health, social work, and economic policy.

I wholeheartedly agree, but I don't think the national politics would support that at the moment. I think we have to start somewhere that isn't controversial like extending coverage to kids. I don't think anyone is going to be against covering 8 and 9 year olds... but they might against 18 or 19 year olds. It's a foot in the door persuasion tactic rather than try to get everything all at once.

> No body goes to the doctor because they want to.

I routinely go to specialists for things I don't need to, because I make enough money that it's better than waiting for the issue to go away on its own.

Now imagine expanding that to the entire country, when they don't have skin in the game.

Parents as a group have lobbied to pretty much own their children. It's hard to justify that ownership if the state is constantly intervening for basic things like healthcare, food, and education.

I disagree with this ownership, as it's pretty bad or at least not as good as what the children could have. Think about how few children received an education before the state took ownership. This doesn't mean I don't understand why it is the way it is. A large part of it in America is for religious reasons: "don't teach my children your Satanic ways." But even without religion, most people have ideas about how their children should grow up and don't trust other people to raise them better than themselves. Even if someone is a shitty parent and recognizes it, they still might prefer more control over less control because they care more about being a parent than their children.

I think, moving back to the topic of the state providing childcare, there's also two more reasons this can be bad. Too often, child support payments end up being misused to fund the parent's lifestyle and leaving the children without basic necessities. You can instead just give the children food/clothing/shelter directly, but you kind of have to provide the bigger, stronger adults in their lives the same things. This creates a perverse incentive for neglectful people to have children. They don't care about the children, just the ticket to free food/housing. Second, people who grow up poor have a lot of disadvantages in their future. Do we want to be creating a financial incentive so that a greater fraction of our population grow up disadvantaged? If the state is not cool with eugenics or taking away children from poor people, then poorer people who would otherwise choose not to have children will suddenly find it more financially feasible. Because the tax dollars came from a richer couple, maybe that richer couple now do not feel they can maintain their lifestyle with another child. Of course, you probably end up with more total children, but the balance has shifted and more people in your society will end up in the lower classes.

I agree with you. But to steelman the argument on the other side, their concern is that subsidizing care for children creates a moral hazard by encouraging irresponsible people to have even more children. It's a feedback loop which creates an escalating burden on the rest of society. I don't think that denying care to children is effective or morally justified; I'm just trying to explain what seems to be the underlying argument.

Everyone knows Medicare isn't "free".

Medicare and COBRA are not similar costs. My parents pay half what I would pay if I took COBRA and they have a better plan. Neither of them were struggling before they retired and I'll put it this way, they bought a second home in retirement.

Health insurance isn't free either and it's way more expensive than Medicare. We're all also already paying for Medicare...

It’s wrong.

And in many states there are also CHIP plans for children who don't qualify for Medicaid.

https://www.healthcare.gov/medicaid-chip/childrens-health-in...