And here's a thought, if the insurance industry cannot handle covering all the people who want their product without furiously raising prices, maybe their industry isn't the right place to turn to in order to improve health-care accessibility in this country in the first place. Maybe "health" and "insurance" simply don't mix, considering the fact that poor health is basically a certainty for all of us and the insurance model is based on hedging against less likely outcomes. Other than the old "major medical" plans that could help defray the cost of unexpected emergency care, health insurance doesn't really make sense if the goal is to reduce costs and/or improve access to care.

So why are we so addicted to insurance as a solution? One hint is insurance companies are big political donors and heavy lobbyists. The OpenSecrets.org watchdog site shows that the insurance industry overall has spent $78.6 million in lobbying this year alone, with the health insurance giant Blue Cross/Blue Shield the top overall spender at more than $9 million.

And even without all the lobbying, it's likely many politicians wouldn't be able to see a way of paying for health care using anything other than the insurance model. After all, even Medicare and Medicaid follow a similar structure as they act like insurance companies in covering some procedures and not others and reimbursing different aspects of care at different proportions, etc.

What if all the health insurers suddenly disappeared tomorrow? Would your doctor, hospital, and drug store disappear too? Of course not. What would disappear is the ability of all our health care providers to mask their true prices and costs. Remember that most of us only find out the list or sticker price of every procedure and treatment only after the fact when we get our statement from the insurance company. Without that masking, consumers would be able to shop around for better prices and better care and take at least some of the money spent on insurance and now use it for actual care.

This would help the government save money too. Instead of relying on insurers to "cover" people with expensive pre-existing conditions, and shoveling subsidies their way to cover those costs, the government could put the sickest patients in dedicated risk pools and figure out how to make economies by cutting out the insurance middleman.

And without insurance or with a much reduced role for insurers, doctors and hospitals would be able to decide more for themselves how to care for patients, instead of almost always consulting and sometimes begging and arguing with insurers over what they will and won't cover.

To be clear, government subsidies and aid would still definitely exist. The public would go into understandable panic mode if insurance disappeared without another way to pay for sometimes expensive care in its place. The point is, it would be less expensive and more logical to focus that taxpayer money on the actual health-care providers, not the insurers.

This isn't about bashing an American industry. It's about removing a series of unfair political, financial, and cultural advantages health insurers have enjoyed for too long. Like all conservatives, I cringe when we hear the "pay your fair share!" shouts from the left. But when the government is the primary source of a particular industry's massive good fortune, the call to remove that unfair advantage is truly justified.

If the insurance companies can find a way to be profitable without undue and unfair help from Uncle Sam, God bless them. If they can't, it shouldn't be the taxpayers job to keep them afloat.

Commentary by Jake Novak, CNBC.com senior columnist. Follow him on Twitter @jakejakeny.

For more insight from CNBC contributors, follow @CNBCopinion on Twitter.