The problem that you have identified is not the one that this policy is intended to solve, although I think this policy does make it substantially easier to solve that type of problem. The whole idea of this policy is that individuals can (and in expectation, will) carry their own private insurance in addition to the public insurance, in order to cover the remaining 80% liability. In that sense, this policy already helps, because it should be strictly easier to afford insurance that covers 80% of your bill than insurance that covers all of your bill. But even if it becomes apparent that we cannot rely on pure private insurance to cover the whole gap, this policy will independently provide an ideal vehicle to address those issues. For example, the coverage of the public insurance could increase from 20% to 100% for certain categories of per-existing conditions, with just a simple administrative change. That kind of problem ought to be addressable as the need arises, using this policy as a social lever. I consider that kind of issue to be somewhat independent though, because regardless of how we choose to solve those edge cases, it is clear we need to make every effort to reduce total healthcare costs.