Damn man, you do realize that I was speaking of healthcare when I said that the rebuilding happens and then the bill comes due? Thus the difference from fire insurance.
Now what you just suggested is what you are doing right now. You say you choose not to have insurance. But do we let people die for their poor choices?
Look, I am not talking of insurance to have your teeth leaned or your blood pressure checked. I am talking about catastrophe insurance. I went uninsured for years, but was relatively lucky. Should I have ben allowed to die if I was hit by lightning just because I took that risk? I think that the vast majority of people in the US would say no, and I guaran-dam-tee no politician will run on that platform. My original point was and is that if you don't agree with allowing people to die do to ability to pay, then you must figure out a way to pay for it, and 1 of the fairest ways is to require those who can pay into that insurance pool to do so, as opposed to current system of just forcing those that carry insurance(employers and employees) and taxpayers to carry the burden.
If you think that we should deny emergency lifesaving care based on ability to pay, ok. That is a consistent position with opposition to forced healthcare coverage.