The current state of healthcare in the US is a joke.

[David88vert]

So you admit that it wouldn't be competition because the government is essentially a non profit? I guess I can't argue with paying less for overhead...

By myself I'm paying $75 a month for insurance with a $2k deductible. So with a public option, I can either

a) Continue to give that money to BCBS, who is for profit, so they have a bunch of overhead, advertising costs, Ferraris, beach homes, etc. Your work pays the balance. This is what already happens.

Or

b) bump my taxes up at the end of the year $1000-$1500, rolled in with Medicaid/Medicare to a department of healthcare or something who has less overhead since they are essentially a non profit. Your work pays the balance, like they do already, set a copayment, deductible, make it all progressive like income taxes (a little more progressive than income tax). Withhold for it on your w2 so you never even see the money.

Or

c) Choose neither, pay for healthcare at the point of service.

Or make it universal, everyone (citizens, taxpayers) now pays for insurance b, no copays. This takes the guy at the hospital bumping up non-insured bills to cover non-payers out of the equation. These inflated costs obviously add to the current cost of healthcare, GONE. No more $100 bills for 50 cent Tylenol since everyone is now paid up It MAY BE an investment up front, but a healthier nation will use it less in the long run, and healthier people are more productive, especially if they (lower, middle class, the producers) aren't worried about a $20k bill for a broken arm

The public option gives insurance companies an actual incentive to compete in prices and reigns in windfall profits. There is currently no real market for health insurance. The end user of such a product has effectively zero input. No one wakes up one day and says "I think I'll take a bullet to the abdomen today! or how bout I get cancer next week! lets go hospital and insurance shopping"

Out of all the industrialized nations, those that have universal healthcare spend half as much as the US.

Would you flee the country if you had to spend the same amount, or most likely less than what you ALREADY pay, to a universal healthcare system rather than a private healthcare system like we already have?

If you did flee the country because you thought healthcare taxes were too much of a burden, where would you go? Everyone else already has universal healthcare. Lol.

The government isn't "non-profit". It just doesn't make a profit for its shareholders - the taxpayers. It is supposed to be a management entity, not a for-profit business.

Senators, Congressmen, the President, his Cabinet, and every Dept all cost money - they have a "bunch of overhead, advertising costs, Ferraris, beach homes, etc. This is what already happens.". Currently, it takes $2.45 trillion in tax revenue, plus they still have to borrow. Somehow, you expect them to provide more services without massively increasing tax revenue - plus unemployment for all of the people put out of work if we implemented a single payer system for healthcare?

[.blank cd]

The government isn't "non-profit". It just doesn't make a profit for its shareholders - the taxpayers. It is supposed to be a management entity, not a for-profit business.

Or, to put it very briefly and eloquently, I'll quote the political thinker BlankCD -" 'Essentially' a non-profit"

I can give you a source for that quote if you need one.

Senators, Congressmen, the President, his Cabinet, and every Dept all cost money - they have a "bunch of overhead, advertising costs, Ferraris, beach homes, etc. This is what already happens.". Currently, it takes $2.45 trillion in tax revenue, plus they still have to borrow. Somehow, you expect them to provide more services without massively increasing tax revenue - plus unemployment for all of the people put out of work if we implemented a single payer system for healthcare?

Holy shitballs, you didn't read what I wrote at all. Not a single word.

[Vteckidd]

Currently, it takes $2.45 trillion in tax revenue, plus they still have to borrow. Somehow, you expect them to provide more services without massively increasing tax revenue - plus unemployment for all of the people put out of work if we implemented a single payer system for healthcare?

Exactly.

BLank, how does $1000-1500 in extra taxes get you to the 1.7 trillion extra in revenue you will need to BREAK EVEN if we had universal healthcare. Sounds like you are just making numbers up without adding it up. SImple math here

$1000 x the TOTAL number of people in the work force (146,743,000 circa 2007, i suspect there are FAR less now)=146,743,000,000 BILLION

Congrats, you are 1/17th of the way there.

This is my point, you guys dont understand what it ACTUALLY costs to give everyone healthcare coverage, its NOT PRACTICAL, IT CANNOT HAPPEN. YOu cannot TAX enough people to get the money you would need to pay for it. You would need to tax 4 times the average tax payer what it costs for our DEFENSE budget TO BREAK EVEN. Its NOT possible. It cannot work. You really want to go to poor and struggling families and tell them they get to pay for $10000-15000 in extra TAXES per year so they can have free single payer healthcare? OR do we just set a ceiling and say, everyone over $100k gets to pay for it?

YOu guys have zero rational way to pay for it. Healthcare is a FOR PROFIT business because it HAS to be FOR PROFIT. THat is how you get the best doctors, the newest equipment, the best surgeons, the best R&D, etc.

I wont even address the "ferrari and boats" comments because that is completely 100% unfounded. Rich people buy rich things, and hold jobs that pay them a lot of money. you cant dictate they make less. Their job pays what the market says their job is worth.

[.blank cd]

Exactly.

BLank, how does $1000-1500 in extra taxes get you to the 1.7 trillion extra in revenue you will need to BREAK EVEN if we had universal healthcare. Sounds like you are just making numbers up without adding it up. SImple math here

$1000 x the TOTAL number of people in the work force (146,743,000 circa 2007, i suspect there are FAR less now)=146,743,000,000 BILLION

Congrats, you are 1/17th of the way there.

This is my point, you guys dont understand what it ACTUALLY costs to give everyone healthcare coverage, its NOT PRACTICAL, IT CANNOT HAPPEN. YOu cannot TAX enough people to get the money you would need to pay for it. You would need to tax 4 times the average tax payer what it costs for our DEFENSE budget TO BREAK EVEN. Its NOT possible. It cannot work. You really want to go to poor and struggling families and tell them they get to pay for $10000-15000 in extra TAXES per year so they can have free single payer healthcare? OR do we just set a ceiling and say, everyone over $100k gets to pay for it?

I don't think we're on the same page here. You're looking at it as if healthcare prices would remain constant. They would not. Here's what happens:

Guy A, B, and C both drive the same car. A has State Farm, B has Collisioncare, a government car insurance program, C has nothing. They both hit a pole and need to replace a fender. There is a government mandate that if I bring my car to the shop, you have to fix it. In real life, prices for fenders, paint and labor are pretty close to fixed whether you have insurance or you don't. Fender is $100, paint is $100, labor is $200. This pays for R&D and for someone to manufacture the paint and the fender, and it pays for the time it takes for the shop to do it and all associated costs, like facilities and health insurance for the other employees, and even nets the shop some profit. What we're seeing as it relates to healthcare insurance, the shop is charging guy A and B $500 for the fender, $500 for the paint, $1000 for labor to cover guy C, and guys like him for costs. A's insurance says we'll pay $1200, B's insurance says they'll pay $1000, C is stuck with a $2000 bill. A and B both pay a $50 deductible, and ride out. Couple days later, A gets a statement in the mail saying "This is what we paid and what you're responsible for, Look how much you saved!" C pays the $2000, but Guy G also cant afford insurance and doesn't pay the shop at all.

The shop still got paid $4200 for what was $1600 worth of parts and labor across the 4 cars.

If EVERYONE who came in had means to pay, be it private or government insurance, doctors wouldn't get stiffed.

There is your drastic cost reduction.

Healthcare is a FOR PROFIT business because it HAS to be FOR PROFIT. THat is how you get the best doctors, the newest equipment, the best surgeons, the best R&D, etc.

How in the hell does everyone else in the industrialized world get by? Spending less than we do? Lol

you cant dictate they make less. Their job pays what the market says their job is worth.

Who dictates what they make? They're running in what is essentially a closed system. There's no end user input to healthcare. There is not a real market to healthcare. It's not the same as any other market.

I can buy a car whenever the mood strikes me and go to 20 different dealerships and get 20 different prices and pick the lowest price.

I don't get cancer, or a bullet wound treated whenever I feel like it

[BanginJimmy]

why dont you read the law before you bash it, and look at the meat of what it's actually trying to accomplish.

So educate me. Other than massively increasing costs to consumers, what is it trying to accomplish?

I hate that bullshit. They're seizing an opportunity to pass along a cost of doing business that should otherwise be absorbed by them, and then trying to make you feel bad about it.

So a business should not pass their costs to their customers? Where the hell did you come up with this? How is a company supposed to stay in business if they should give away their products for free? That has got to be one of the absolute dumbest things I have ever seen posted here.

When Single payer/public option becomes an option. With all the socialism rhetoric behind the idea, and all the lobbying against it, probably never.

-Tort reform
-Price fixing
-marijuana legalization

Some steps that could be taken in the meantime

Single payer would be FAR more expensive than the current overpriced healthcare we get. Please tell me how legalizing marijuana would bring down health care costs. I need a good laugh.

Sure it is. You choose the government option, you get a tax increase. Cut out the middle man. You're gonna pay it one way or the other.

What about the 50+% of American households that dont pay any taxes now? Are you going to expect them to start paying their fair share?

I think someone said "People love capitalism until they're on the losing side of the competition, then it becomes socialism." Or something to that effect.

People also like liberalism until they realize they are expected to pay for it.

So you admit that it wouldn't be competition because the government is essentially a non profit? I guess I can't argue with paying less for overhead...

Paying less overhead for govt. HAHAHAHA, you are on a roll today. You pay more for govt overhead than you do for private sector overhead.

[David88vert]

Or, to put it very briefly and eloquently, I'll quote the political thinker BlankCD -" 'Essentially' a non-profit"

I can give you a source for that quote if you need one.

You either don't understand the differences or you are choosing to ignore the differences between a managerial organization, a non-profit, and business. Customers, financial cash flow, etc, are different between a non-profit entity, and a managerial entity, such as government.

Holy shitballs, you didn't read what I wrote at all. Not a single word.

I pulled a "blank" and simply ignored it.

[David88vert]

I don't think we're on the same page here. You're looking at it as if healthcare prices would remain constant. They would not. Here's what happens:

Guy A and B both drive the same car. A has insurance, B does not. They both hit a pole and need to replace a fender. There is a government mandate that if I bring my car to the shop, you have to fix it. In real life, prices for fenders, paint and labor are pretty close to fixed whether you have insurance or you don't. Fender is 100, paint is 100, labor is 200. In this scenario, there are some people who have State Farm, some who have Collisionaide or Collisioncare, and some who have nothing.

You've never estimated for a body shop, or worked in one, obviously.
There are multiple estimation tools for each task, and each estimate is figured differently in real life. A fender might be estimated to be repaired at one shop, but replaced at another. Different paint qualities get different pricing. Cheap paint might cost 100, but quality chemicals cost money, and could be much higher. Employees are pushed to get as many cars out as possible, and often cut corners to do so. Now you want to do the same to your own personal body?
Body shops often waive deductibles as a kick-back to the customer, and that's technically corruption. How do you expect there not to be the same issues when its an actual person on the line?

[.blank cd]

You've never estimated for a body shop, or worked in one, obviously.
There are multiple estimation tools for each task, and each estimate is figured differently in real life. A fender might be estimated to be repaired at one shop, but replaced at another. Different paint qualities get different pricing. Cheap paint might cost 100, but quality chemicals cost money, and could be much higher. Employees are pushed to get as many cars out as possible, and often cut corners to do so. Now you want to do the same to your own personal body?

Actually I know all about body shop estimation. And here you go proving me right again. Not only are the prices youve given still fixed, but you're partly illustrating something that I didn't reference for a reason that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Stay on topic.

[.blank cd]

You either don't understand the differences or you are choosing to ignore the differences between a managerial organization, a non-profit, and business. Customers, financial cash flow, etc, are different between a non-profit entity, and a managerial entity, such as government.

AGAIN, like I said..

'Essentially' a non profit....

'Essentially'

Maybe you don't fully understand what that means but I can continue to break it down even further if you need me to. Unless your first language isn't English, in which case I apologize for being insensitive.

[.blank cd]

So educate me. Other than massively increasing costs to consumers, what is it trying to accomplish?

Did you read it?

So a business should not pass their costs to their customers? Where the hell did you come up with this? How is a company supposed to stay in business if they should give away their products for free? That has got to be one of the absolute dumbest things I have ever seen posted here.

Businesses absorb costs all the time, everyday. What about that concept do you not understand?

[BanginJimmy]

Actually I know all about body shop estimation. And here you go proving me right again. Not only are the prices youve given still fixed, but you're partly illustrating something that I didn't reference for a reason that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Stay on topic.

You are both highlighting one of the main reasons healthcare is so expensive. Americans think the newest and most expensive is the best and demand that. There are many low tech, and low costs tests and procedures out there, but patients want the newest and highest tech, which costs more. Docs also push for the newest and highest tech because of defensive medicine. They know that if they go the low tech route and miss something, related to the symptoms at the time of the procedure or not, they will be sued.

[BanginJimmy]

Did you read it?

I read the congressional outline when it was passed. I tried reading the actual law but didnt get far.

Businesses absorb costs all the time, everyday. What about that concept do you not understand?

Businesses dont absorb any costs, they pass them on to the consumer. The only exceptions I can think of would be third party retailers (their actual name eludes me right now) such as the non Verizon owned Verizon retailers. In most of those cases they are very heavily price controlled, giving the retailers very little room to absorb costs.


You forgot to explain how legalizing marijuana will reduce healthcare costs.

[Sinfix_15]

My health insurance cost went up and they had a big note on the enrollment paperwork that said "Due to changes required by the affordable healthcare act rates will be increasing."

Affordable my ass, my rates doubled.

Same thing happened to me. We had a company meeting where it was explained "due to the results of the election" and the affordable healthcare act that rates were going up. A lot of people were mad.... most of them were black.... almost all of them were outspoken Obama supporters.....

It was difficult not to say "shut the fuck up you voted for this shit"

but yeah....

My healthcare cost increased 73%

[Sinfix_15]

I hate that bullshit. They're seizing an opportunity to pass along a cost of doing business that should otherwise be absorbed by them, and then trying to make you feel bad about it.

They did that a few years back when I started at where. The self-proclaimed conservative HR manager used to think it was cool to come down here and pass along his idealogical BS and anti-Obama rhetoric whenever 401k meetings and insurance meetings came up, until I started fact checking him every time he spoke.

He doesn't come down here anymore.

Yeah, all of these business' warning their employees that Obama will make their paychecks smaller..... just because theyre racists.....

probably has nothing to do with the constant complaints they get when people have smaller paychecks.

You're too far gone to reason with. Obama can do no wrong in your eyes. You want to like him too badly to see him for what he is.

[.blank cd]

You forgot to explain how legalizing marijuana will reduce healthcare costs.

Regulation and subsequent taxation.

[Echonova]

Why is my child a "condition"? I don't understand. Lol.

Because it's not a child. It is a malignant tissue mass, that your wife can choose to abort if she so desires, even against your wishes... Because it's not a life yet. And as an oppressive man you forced this pregnancy upon her. Right?

Thankfully, because of Obamacare, all of that will be changed come 2014.

LOL

[.blank cd]

Because it's not a child. It is a malignant tissue mass, that your wife can choose to abort if she so desires, even against your wishes... Because it's not a life yet. And as an oppressive man you forced this pregnancy upon her. Right?

We're not quite through the first trimester yet, so doctors say there's still a chance things could go sour. Since religious zealotry hasn't completely taken over yet, should the worst happen and the fetus dies, a doctor can perform a partial-birth abortion. Wouldn't want a dead fetus stuck up there forever, ya know?

[Echonova]

We're not quite through the first trimester yet, so doctors say there's still a chance things could go sour. Since religious zealotry hasn't completely taken over yet, should the worst happen and the fetus dies, a doctor can perform a partial-birth abortion. Wouldn't want a dead fetus stuck up there forever, ya know?

Why wait for the baby to die? What if you just didn't want it? Good enough reason.

Either way I wouldn't want it stuck up in there either. Even a religious man hates a stanky vag. Can't imagine what death would smell like all up in there.

[.blank cd]

Why wait for the baby to die? What if you just didn't want it? Good enough reason.

Eh. Kinda want mine, but to each his own.

[Sinfix_15]

We're not quite through the first trimester yet, so doctors say there's still a chance things could go sour. Since religious zealotry hasn't completely taken over yet, should the worst happen and the fetus dies, a doctor can perform a partial-birth abortion. Wouldn't want a dead fetus stuck up there forever, ya know?

One claimed to turn water in to wine, the other claimed to turn tax increases into jobs

both have a legion of blind followers who defy all logic to maintain their belief system.

[Echonova]

However, you neglected to address the issue if your wife wanted to terminate without your consent. Would that bother you? After all according to Andrea Dworkin "All sex is rape." so her decision to do so would be well founded.


Later in life that fat heifer tried to "clarify" her statement... But we all know she meant it.

[Echonova]

Eh. Kinda want mine, but to each his own.

Why? Babies are a burden and incredibly expensive (if this is your first... HAhahahahahahAHHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahAHHAHAHAHAHAAH AHAHAHAH. You have no idea). Not to mention is only increasing your family's carbon footprint upon Mother Gaia.

[.blank cd]

However, you neglected to address the issue if your wife wanted to terminate without your consent. Would that bother you?

I would suppose in any case, ultimately, the decision isn't up to me, no matter what I thought about it.

After all according to Andrea Dworkin "All sex is rape." so her decision to do so would be well founded.


Later in life that fat heifer tried to "clarify" her statement... But we all know she meant it.

I don't know who said all sex was rape, never heard that before ever.

[.blank cd]

Why? Babies are a burden and incredibly expensive (if this is your first... HAhahahahahahAHHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahAHHAHAHAHAHAAH AHAHAHAH. You have no idea). Not to mention is only increasing your family's carbon footprint upon Mother Gaia.

I guess there's always Medicaid and SNAP

[.blank cd]

One claimed to turn water in to wine, the other claimed to turn tax increases into jobs

both have a legion of blind followers who defy all logic to maintain their belief system.

What? Didnt know what a partial birth abortion was? Or just because Obama said something about it, it's inherently evil. Lol. But I understand. Gotta go against everything Obama stands for though, no matter how right or real it is. Lol.

[David88vert]

Actually I know all about body shop estimation. And here you go proving me right again. Not only are the prices youve given still fixed, but you're partly illustrating something that I didn't reference for a reason that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Stay on topic.

Fixed? Anything but fixed.
There are multiple systems that different shops use. There are multiple paint qualities and variable pricing for them. There are different labor rates at different shops.
You won't typically get two identical quotes out of 100 shops for the same collision.

[David88vert]

Businesses absorb costs all the time, everyday. What about that concept do you not understand?

Spoken like a person who has never actually owned a profitable business.

[.blank cd]

Fixed? Anything but fixed.
There are multiple systems that different shops use. There are multiple paint qualities and variable pricing for them. There are different labor rates at different shops.
You won't typically get two identical quotes out of 100 shops for the same collision.

You still don't understand.

What about price fixing are you having trouble understanding?

Here. Let me help you

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_controls

[.blank cd]

Spoken like a person who has never actually owned a profitable business.

So when I tell you I own a very profitable business, guess that means you probably have something wrong with your understanding of economics, no?

[Echonova]

So when I tell you I own a very profitable business, guess that means you probably have something wrong with your understanding of economics, no?

Tells me nothing.



Tells Obama you're not doing "your fair share".

Very profitable = Evil rich.

[.blank cd]

Tells me nothing.



Tells Obama you're not doing "your fair share".

Very profitable = Evil rich.

I drive a civic. I'm definitely not evil rich. Lol

[Echonova]

I drive a civic. I'm definitely not evil rich. Lol

Warren Buffet drives a Caddilac DTS, if we equate net worth to car value...




You are still the evil rich.

[.blank cd]

Warren Buffet drives a Caddilac DTS, if we equate net worth to car value...




You are still the evil rich.

I guess me and Mr. Buffet have more in common than I thought then.

[Echonova]

I like your style.

[Vteckidd]

Back on topic.

Your comment about the price of healthcare going down is completely unfounded. You have to spend money to cover people FIRST before, THEORETICALLY, the costs would go down. You cant just blanket cover people in a single payer and then say "hey people are covered costs will come down now!"

The MONEY has to come from SOMEWHERE FIRST, which is the revenue side of things, which , as i just showed you, is not even CLOSE to being able to be done. Doctors pay wont just magically fall, costs wont magically go down because you invent a system to cover people.

With the govt fitting the bill, costs will GO UP, what dont you understand about this. It happens in EVERY OTHER SECTION OF INDUSTRY the government is involved in

HOUSING
STUDENT LOANS
HEALTHCARE
CLEAN ENERGY

[BanginJimmy]

Regulation and subsequent taxation.

How does taxation and regulation of marijuana lower healthcare costs.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

[David88vert]

You still don't understand.

What about price fixing are you having trouble understanding?

Here. Let me help you

Price controls - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I understand pricing fixing just fine. What you do not seem to understand is that there are always around fixed prices, and that people will quickly take advantage of them.

You haven't even addressed how (and no one else has either) hospitals that receive a set allotment from a single payer system are going to handle situations when their financial resources run out, due to the needs being greater than the allotment. This has already happened quite a bit in California.

Back to the body shop comparison. Here's the big questions. How do you handle a massive trauma? Do you "total" a person out when you estimate that they aren't worth the cost (like a car)? Does a person have a lower value and worth to society as they get older (like a car), and the cost to repair them becomes "not worth it"?

In Russia, they had a state-produced car, and it's costs were low. It was also a piece of crap that no one on IA would ever want.

Don't get me wrong. I am not claiming that single payer cannot work, nor am I claiming that it is a bad idea. In an ideal world that always follows the happy path, it appears to be a great solution. The problem is that this is not an ideal world, and it is much more complex to create and practice than people realize. I am not saying that it should not be explored as an option. I agree with you that our current healthcare system is more expensive than it should be. I just don't think that the current proposals are looking at the reality of how people behave.

[David88vert]

So when I tell you I own a very profitable business, guess that means you probably have something wrong with your understanding of economics, no?

Your main income is from working for others. We already know that.

If you think that a business doesn't pass on the the costs of overhead to their customers, you don't have a place managing a business. Businesses exist for profit. Can they exist on a smaller margin of profit? That depends on the type of business, and the amount of difference in the profit margins.

My understanding of econimics seems to be working pretty well for me. Anyone that has met me can tell you that.

[.blank cd]

I understand pricing fixing just fine. What you do not seem to understand is that there are always around fixed prices, and that people will quickly take advantage of them.

You haven't even addressed how (and no one else has either) hospitals that receive a set allotment from a single payer system are going to handle situations when their financial resources run out, due to the needs being greater than the allotment. This has already happened quite a bit in California.

If I give you $100 allotment everyday, and one day you use 70, one day you use 80, 90, 80, 110, 90, etc, and we've been doing this for decades, now that your using your money somewhere else thats cheaper and Im still giving you the same allotment of $100, now you use $10, 20, 5, 30, 10, etc.

Im talking about shifting what youre already paying from one entity, to another entity that can operate with less costs and overhead.

Back to the body shop comparison. Here's the big questions. How do you handle a massive trauma? Do you "total" a person out when you estimate that they aren't worth the cost (like a car)? Does a person have a lower value and worth to society as they get older (like a car), and the cost to repair them becomes "not worth it"?

Youve taken my body shop analogy on a whole different tangent. The costs associated with a paper cut and multiple gunshots to the face are already in place. We're just eliminating the markup hospitals use to cover people who dont pay, by giving everyone the ability to pay.

In Russia, they had a state-produced car, and it's costs were low. It was also a piece of crap that no one on IA would ever want.

Im not talking about a car. That is an ENTIRELY different product, in an ENTIRELY different market that operates on ENTIRELY different priciples. Apples and oranges.

How does taxation and regulation of marijuana lower healthcare costs.

Back on topic.

Your comment about the price of healthcare going down is completely unfounded. You have to spend money to cover people FIRST before, THEORETICALLY, the costs would go down. You cant just blanket cover people in a single payer and then say "hey people are covered costs will come down now!"

The MONEY has to come from SOMEWHERE FIRST, which is the revenue side of things, which , as i just showed you, is not even CLOSE to being able to be done. Doctors pay wont just magically fall, costs wont magically go down because you invent a system to cover people.

Its already being funded, and if you pay taxes, youre already funding it.

With the govt fitting the bill, costs will GO UP, what dont you understand about this. It happens in EVERY OTHER SECTION OF INDUSTRY the government is involved in

HOUSING
STUDENT LOANS
CLEAN ENERGY

All of these are entirely different markets.

[David88vert]

If I give you $100 allotment everyday, and one day you use 70, one day you use 80, 90, 80, 110, 90, etc, and we've been doing this for decades, now that your using your money somewhere else thats cheaper and Im still giving you the same allotment of $100, now you use $10, 20, 5, 30, 10, etc.

Im talking about shifting what youre already paying from one entity, to another entity that can operate with less costs and overhead.

Youve taken my body shop analogy on a whole different tangent. The costs associated with a paper cut and multiple gunshots to the face are already in place. We're just eliminating the markup hospitals use to cover people who dont pay, by giving everyone the ability to pay.

Im not talking about a car. That is an ENTIRELY different product, in an ENTIRELY different market that operates on ENTIRELY different priciples. Apples and oranges.



Its already being funded, and if you pay taxes, youre already funding it.

All of these are entirely different markets.

Since it's already funded, care to take a look as to why hospitals are going bankrupt in California? They apparently don't have enough funding to keep up with the needs. How were you planning on reducing costs again?
In 2003, the American Southwest saw 77 hospitals enter bankruptcy due to unpaid medical bills incurred by illegal aliens. A staggering 84 hospitals in California alone, have been forced to close their doors because of the growing crisis. Hospitals which manage to remain open, pass the unpaid costs onto the rest of us, which translates into more out-of-pocket expenses and higher insurance premiums for Americans.