There's no good reason for healthcare that everybody needs to be locked behind a prohibitive money gate.
So what's the argument that suggests poor people need to be given healthcare, but not bread?
I suggest to just give them money, and then they can buy the bread and healthcare they need.
(And that's a general principle.
However giving goods and services directly does make sense for non-excludable public goods. Eg don't give poor people money to procure national defense. Just provide national defense directly with tax payer money.)
You (deliberately?) misread the parent's comments. It was not very long, and it centered on the word "both".
> I suggest to just give them money, and then they can buy the bread and healthcare they need.
Elsewhere you wrote that "unforeseeable, big events" should still be covered by insurance, but I don't think you understand that if people don't have enough money, even getting regular checkups and medication can be pretty "big" from the affected person's perspective. If two people are scraping by on a universal basic income that is enough for basic shelter and food, and one of those people regularly needs checkups or medication for some chronic condition, then you are screwing over one of those people.
This isn't about the freedom to choose not to be chronically ill, because there is no such freedom. Neither is it about the freedom to choose not to be treated for chronic medical conditions. There is no such freedom, the word for that "choice" is "torture".
To be more clear: if society spends X dollars per year per poor person on direct financial transfers, and Y dollars per year per poor person on in-kind services, I am suggesting to move to a system of giving the poor person (X+Y) dollars in direct financial transfers.
Is that better?
About the latter part of your comment:
Yes, that is a real problem. There are (at least) two reasonable approaches that leave insurance as insurance:
First, you can just give the chronically ill or disabled person more welfare money.
Or, second, if you are a purist for equality: enter a very long running insurance contract, before you develop a chronic condition. Because then there's still uncertainty, and uncertain conditions are insurable. In the strictest form, your parents would make the arrangements before conceiving you.
BUT: I do gladly concede that for serious enough conditions just handing out medical services might be a reasonable choice. I don't know. But that doesn't say much about routine check-ups for healthy people.
I believe you mean "bread OR healthcare".
To quote myself: if society spends X dollars per year per poor person on direct financial transfers, and Y dollars per year per poor person on in-kind services, I am suggesting to move to a system of giving the poor person (X+Y) dollars in direct financial transfers.
