@Draugnar - I'm really having a lot of trouble not cursing and using ad homonym attacks here after you insulted my intelligence, when you very well know from this and other discussions that I'm not an idiot. I try to respect you, even though we frequently disagree, and I would appreciate the same courtesy from you.
Now back to the point you were trying to make. Just what point were you trying to make? You made the statement in response to someone saying that most people are probably one major medical condition away from disaster. This is a discussion on reforming healthcare/insurance reform (and yes, I know very well there's a difference, I have tried to use the proper term where appropriate, but MADE A MISTAKE, which I think is understandable given how often the terms are conflated in the media, and in just about every discussion on the topic, including here). So what exactly was the point you were trying to make? Now you're saying that only about 25% of the population (I'll give you some leeway on that figure, but clearly you assume that the majority of the population isn't qualified for said jobs) has the skills etc to get a job with good health insurance, either through a corporation or a Small to Medium Business (I'm now assuming that's what you meant by SMB?) So... how does that refute the idea that most people are likely to be one emergency away from disaster?
Perhaps I was expanding your statements too far to the wider discussion going on, but it sounded like you were trying to say that anyone who wanted to (and apparently had the skills) could get good insurance, and therefore there wasn't any need to expand coverage to all or most Americans. But now you're saying that 75% of the population doesn't have the skills to get those jobs. So do those people not deserve good health insurance?
So are you satisfied with just covering 25% of the population well? If your point wasn't that anyone that wants good insurance can get it, then what were you trying to say?