Or to make a long story short....
how can you claim individual inevitability, when most people end up being forced to consume more then they would of consumed otherwise?
It's something your sidestepping, by trying to argue the merits of the system while getting away from your actual legal arguement of inevitability.
If your arguement is one of inevitability, people should only be forced to consume what is = to inevitable. Otherwise inevitability ceases to exist, because you are now forcing people to consume a product that is NOT inevitable.
Like forcing someone to buy more food then they need to eat.
Additionally, if your argueing that health insurance prices aren't relatable to healthcare prices because of how health insurance works. That even more defeats your point of inevitability, because you aren't even paying for the same product.
