Could there be such as things a too loose of a game? Or a game with TOO much action?

Imagine this game: 1/2 NL. $200 buy-in cap.
Regular button straddle between $5-$10.
Many players defend their straddle regardless hand rank or raise size.

For example:

Button straddles to $10.
Hero ($200) raises to $40 with KK in HJ.
Button ($300) calls. Pot = ~$80
Flop = J47 rainbow
Hero bets $60
Button calls
Turn = 2
Hero shoves
Button calls with J2 off

Now...this sort of scenario might never happen in a standard game. Even if a loose player chooses to call a standard $15 raise w trash on the button and gets there less money will be lost. Hero will not be putting entire stack at risk with one pair hands. Money can still be made but with less risk.

Am a wrong, or is a game like I am describing difficult to play because the risk of ruin is so high and the average pot is bigger or equal to the average stack. So pretty much on every hand all the money is going in on the flop.

I try to manage my money well and I don't like to rebuy unless its just a cooler. I don't want to be "gambling" with non-nut hands time and time again against totally unpredictable opponents. Some degree of fold equity is nice.
Yes, I know you will say my range is always crushing his range. But is it worth it if I have to loose a few buy-ins first? When there are other games with less risk? This kind of game is basically like a short stacked 2/5 game and I'm not comfortable playing that way because I feel like it reduces my edge. On the other hand, the action is undeniable.

Anyone have some thoughts on this?

These are the best games possible. Playing OMCs are low variance, low profit. These games are high variance, high profit.

It doesn't matter who you're playing or what stakes, you'll have decisions to make, make the right ones.

Sounds like much of the underground games around here.

Table selection is a part of poker. If you are uncomfortable playing in these kinds of games then find a table that better suits your game, I guess.