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

[Sinfix_15]

I don't see you putting up much of a fight against public education? Is this what you're implying? I guess you'll be sticking your kids in private school? Lol

Yeah, because its all or nothing. You either adopt the full on liberal utopia'n mindset or you reject all of society.... no other options. If you care so much about taking care of the world, set up a foundation, spend your weekends feeding the homeless, open up the extra rooms in your house to the needy..........

for a lack of better words.... why cant i not give a fuck? Where is the opt out option at? If liberal policies are all so wonderful, why must they be forced upon us? If i'm ever in danger of not being able to take care of myself.... it will most likely be because of me paying the government to take care of me. But there you go..... that's the system in a nutshell. Turn on the sprinklers and then sell rain coats.

[.blank cd]

With the track record the govt has, how could anyone be against that? I mean, look how well they have managed the money they confiscated to pay for retirement.

Why do we keep comparing healthcare to a completely different government program like they're equal? Lol

Enron didnt do so well on the private market, but I still give walmart my money every week for groceries. Lol

[BanginJimmy]

I don't see you putting up much of a fight against public education? Is this what you're implying? I guess you'll be sticking your kids in private school? Lol

You are speaking of the public education system that by any standard you would like to use is failing the students? It works great for the school administrators and teachers unions though.

[BanginJimmy]

Why do we keep comparing healthcare to a completely different government program like they're equal? Loll

Because its the same people running them both. I have already compared your version of universal health care to medicare and shown just how much more expensive it will be. 1T more a year and that is a low estimate.

[BanginJimmy]

Maybe, maybe not. You won't get legal pot though without it being taxed. That is out of the question. If you don't want to pay taxes on weed, don't think about buying weed. Its that simple. Lol.

This is just a tax. Explain to me how a tax on weed, or on gas for that matter, is going to make a knee replacement cheaper.

[.blank cd]

Yeah, because its all or nothing. You either adopt the full on liberal utopia'n mindset or you reject all of society.... no other options. If you care so much about taking care of the world, set up a foundation, spend your weekends feeding the homeless, open up the extra rooms in your house to the needy..........

for a lack of better words.... why cant i not give a fuck? Where is the opt out option at? If liberal policies are all so wonderful, why must they be forced upon us? If i'm ever in danger of not being able to take care of myself.... it will most likely be because of me paying the government to take care of me. But there you go..... that's the system in a nutshell. Turn on the sprinklers and then sell rain coats.

You have a horribly myopic view of government and life and what is liberal and what isn't.

[.blank cd]

Because its the same people running them both. I have already compared your version of universal health care to medicare and shown just how much more expensive it will be. 1T more a year and that is a low estimate.

You're comparing the new system to a system thats already broken and poorly funded. Youre thinking that just because the government is running it, it's automatically gonna be poorly funded and poorly run.

Look at the US Military. It is painfully obvious they have zero problem with funding.

Look at it this way. All I'm saying is its essentially ALL private insurance, but instead of the check going to BCBS whoever, it goes to Uncle Sam, everyone is on it, it's progressively taxed like income. That's it. I'm not saying your taxes won't go up 1T. I've said it before that they will. But you're ALREADY PAYING this 1T. Instead of paying for it in the front end, you're paying in the back end.

[David88vert]

Blank, do you happen to know who handles the management for Medicare? Do a little research and get back on here.

[David88vert]

Why do we keep comparing healthcare to a completely different government program like they're equal? Lol

Enron didnt do so well on the private market, but I still give walmart my money every week for groceries. Lol

Social Security hasn't been around even 100 years and it has major issues.

Public schools are local - not national - not managed by the federal government. Local taxes provide the majority of funding for public schools.
Currently, our hospitals are locally managed. A federally controlled healthcare system would change that.

[David88vert]

Ive offered that improvement. I'm still not sure where you're lost? It seems that you have an idealogical aversion to it, but its based on the same as the tax system we have in place that everyone's already agreed to. We're just taking the money we're already paying insurance companies for healthcare and giving it to the government. I don't think I could make it any simpler than that. Lol.


Person 2 is already responsible for person 1. You are paying for it on the front end right now. There will always be people who abuse the system. It's a fact of life we have to cope with. My system makes it so that YOU don't have to cope with it as much.

I'm not lost. I know that nationalizing healthcare will not lower costs or improve the quality of care for the individuals who are currently funding the system.

I would have to cope with a lower quality of care and higher cost under your "utopian" idealistic plan. It would hardly be " utopian for me to receive lower quality at an increased price.

[.blank cd]

I'm not lost. I know that nationalizing healthcare will not lower costs or improve the quality of care for the individuals who are currently funding the system.

I would have to cope with a lower quality of care and higher cost under your "utopian" idealistic plan. It would hardly be " utopian for me to receive lower quality at an increased price.

you would have the same care at a lower cost, something I'm missing?

[BanginJimmy]

You're comparing the new system to a system thats already broken and poorly funded. Youre thinking that just because the government is running it, it's automatically gonna be poorly funded and poorly run.

Look at the US Military. It is painfully obvious they have zero problem with funding.

Look at it this way. All I'm saying is its essentially ALL private insurance, but instead of the check going to BCBS whoever, it goes to Uncle Sam, everyone is on it, it's progressively taxed like income. That's it. I'm not saying your taxes won't go up 1T. I've said it before that they will. But you're ALREADY PAYING this 1T. Instead of paying for it in the front end, you're paying in the back end.

As of 2011 there were about 48 million people on medicare and it cost 525B. You call that poorly funded? You are correct in that it is poorly run. Now you should explain how adding 260mil more people to it will make the same people suddenly run it much better.

Look at the military. Hugely expensive and fiscally very poorly run. Giving them more money hasnt made it run better like you are suggesting would happen with medicare.

So you want to take ANOTHER 1T away from people that earned it. Sounds like a great way to collapse the economy. And no, we arent paying that extra 1T right now because the 2.9T in health care spending already covered all of the current copays and premiums currently paid. Your idea will cause at least 1T on top of that.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

[BanginJimmy]

you would have the same care at a lower cost, something I'm missing?

No you won't. Nothing you are suggesting would do anything about costs. All it does is change who is paying.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

[David88vert]

you would have the same care at a lower cost, something I'm missing?

Yes, the federal government's inefficiency at managing national social programs, as well as fraud being more prevalent in programs that the federal government controls. The cost would not go down.

If you take the same or less money, but extend care to all, you cannot maintain the same benefits. It's not economically feasible in real life.

[David88vert]

Now you should explain how adding 260mil more people to it will make the same people suddenly run it much better.

So you want to take ANOTHER 1T away from people that earned it. Sounds like a great way to collapse the economy. And no, we arent paying that extra 1T right now because the 2.9T in health care spending already covered all of the current copays and premiums currently paid. Your idea will cause at least 1T on top of that.

To further clarify, the additional 260 million people would have a large percentage that do not currently fund their own healthcare, which would push their health burdens on those who were already being responsible and funding the system.

[David88vert]

Again;
Blank, do you happen to know who handles the management for Medicare? Do a little research and get back on here.


Also:
Since we want a utopian world, and those with more should give to the les fortunate - how about you give me a couple of Nikon lenses? I know that you have more gear than I do, so hook me up with some free camera gear! It's the same thing. Show me some charity! One of those lenses that you saved up for and made sacrifices to get will do. Just give it to me for free.

[.blank cd]

No you won't. Nothing you are suggesting would do anything about costs. All it does is change who is paying.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

Exactly. On top of that, giving everyone coverage.

We've seen examples of why healthcare costs as much as it does. Doctors are triple charging for services to cover the costs of the people who can't pay. We know this, no one denies it. If you make it so that everyone can pay, they don't have to charge more to cover the ones that don't. Doctors can charge 2/3 less now.

[Vteckidd]

. If you make it so that everyone can pay, they don't have to charge more to cover the ones that don't.

You never answered this when i asked a few pages back..............HOW do you get everyone to "pay"

[Vteckidd]

Sorry. You can't ignore the people of the world unite bit, that's the whole crux of the discussion. Lol. Getting people healthcare who can't otherwise get it.

Something something something more perfect union something something something promote general welfare something.

People who cant afford it have access to free healthcare as it is.

you are trying to cover people who
A) are here illegally
B) Choose NOT to have healthcare because its not a priority for them
C) trying to make other people pay for those peoples CHOICE not to have healthcare.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say the govt is to provide medical care. Sorry.

[Vteckidd]

We're just taking the money we're already paying insurance companies for healthcare and giving it to the government. I don't think I could make it any simpler than that. Lol.

How many doctors does the Govt employ? How many hospitals? If money goes to the GoVT there is no insurance company anymore. Which means, a $500,000 procedure, now costs $500,000..........CASH. No insurance, no safety net against large costs. insurance is there IN CASe shit happens.

If you transfer money from the insruance companie to a single payer like the Govt, you WILL END UP with rationed care and exploding costs. All you are advocating is the govt to tell the private sector what they can charge, what they can test for, and what they can pay themselves.

That in itself, will destroy quality of care.

[Sinfix_15]

You have a horribly myopic view of government and life and what is liberal and what isn't.

The difference in me and you is this.....

i think you're a bleeding heart delusional moron searching for a utopia that doesnt and never will exist....... i dont want to change you, i just want to stay the hell away from you.

You think whatever you think of me...... and want me to conform to your beliefs.....

which is extremely ironic.... since you're openly anti-christian.

[.blank cd]

You never answered this when i asked a few pages back..............HOW do you get everyone to "pay"

Tax it. Sticking all the premiums on your income tax. You pay the premium you pay now, your company pays the rest, just like whats happening now.

People who cant afford it have access to free healthcare as it is.

you are trying to cover people who
A) are here illegally
B) Choose NOT to have healthcare because its not a priority for them
C) trying to make other people pay for those peoples CHOICE not to have healthcare.

Yes, people who cant afford it have free healthcare. We pay for that already, they pay for that already, that wont change.

How many doctors does the Govt employ? How many hospitals? If money goes to the GoVT there is no insurance company anymore. Which means, a $500,000 procedure, now costs $500,000..........CASH. No insurance, no safety net against large costs. insurance is there IN CASe shit happens.

If you transfer money from the insruance companie to a single payer like the Govt, you WILL END UP with rationed care and exploding costs. All you are advocating is the govt to tell the private sector what they can charge, what they can test for, and what they can pay themselves.

That in itself, will destroy quality of care.

We already know your $500,000 procedure only costs $200,000. What that 200,000 pays for is all the docs time to perform it, pays for all the equipment, the R&D for that equipment, pays for all the hospital staff to administer the paperwork, all of that. The other 300,000 covers the guy that comes into the hospital that needs the same surgery but has no job and no health insurance. Your premiums already reflect this cost. Even if you shift your costs dollar for dollar, you've now given the government a premium that covers that $500,000 procedure, but now that everyone is already paid up before they hit the door, the procedure only has to cost 200,000. The figures are just an example.

edit: I take that back, your premium SORT OF reflects this cost. Whether youre on medicare or private insurance, you're paying them to negotiate down from that $500,000. Private insurance says we'll pay 400, medicare says we'll pay 380.

The difference in me and you is this.....

i think you're a bleeding heart delusional moron searching for a utopia that doesnt and never will exist....... i dont want to change you, i just want to stay the hell away from you.

You think whatever you think of me...... and want me to conform to your beliefs.....

which is extremely ironic.... since you're openly anti-christian.

I could care less if you conform to my beliefs or not. And you'll never win the anti-christian argument. Im pretty pro christianity, Im just also anti-being-a-bigot-and-thinly-veiled-racist-whilst-using-an-imaginary-entity-and-stortybook-to-justify-being-an-asshole

[David88vert]

Ok, let's break down the numbers in the "utopian healthcare single payer system".

In 2010, there were 194,296,087 people between 18-65 (working age). Not all of these people actually worked, actually only about 64% of them, but for the sake of this situation, lets assume that every single one of them was employed full-time (no students, no stay at home moms, no unemployed - you know, utopia).

Health expenditures in the United States neared $2.6 trillion in 2010. We will use a little smaller number for this discussion, just to be more than fair - 2,550,000,000,000.

Under your utopian plan, each person would need to be responsible for $13,124.29 per year for every year between 18-65 - and that cost would continue to grow in the future. That's $1100 per month per person - if everyone worked full time and everyone paid in.

Now, as to your 2/3's reduction in the cost of medical procedures - that is pure conjecture, based upon a lack of critical thinking. You make the assumption that all are paid on hourly wages, salary, etc, and do not consider commission based practices. An example would be a surgeon starting out and working under another surgeon's leadership and mentoring. If the new physician made 50% of his gross billables, then your proposal earlier of reducing a $1500 procedure to a $500 proceedure would massively impact what he would make. Instead of $750, he would receive $250; however, he still has only the same amount of time per week to see patients - that number would not go up. Assuming that he performed 20 percedures per week on average, he would go from making $750,000 to $250,000 per year. While you might think that he is still making good money, he would still have the same amount of college debt (that wouldn't be lowering), as well as the same costs for housing, supporting his family, insurance, etc - none of those costs would drop.
The bottom line is that to say that costs would be cut by 2/3's is only hopeful optimism, and has no basis in reality.

One more set of numbers to consider. 16.3% of the population was not insured in 2010. 83.7% were insured and of those under 65, almost all were covered by private insurance. In 2010, there were approximately 48,000 deaths that may have been prevented by having a single payer system. That's it.

As for administrative costs, 7% of health care expenditures are estimated to go toward for the administrative costs of government health care programs and the net cost of private insurance (e.g. administrative costs, reserves, taxes, profits/losses).[

[David88vert]

We already know your $500,000 procedure only costs $200,000. What that 200,000 pays for is all the docs time to perform it, pays for all the equipment, the R&D for that equipment, pays for all the hospital staff to administer the paperwork, all of that. The other 300,000 covers the guy that comes into the hospital that needs the same surgery but has no job and no health insurance. Your premiums already reflect this cost. Even if you shift your costs dollar for dollar, you've now given the government a premium that covers that $500,000 procedure, but now that everyone is already paid up before they hit the door, the procedure only has to cost 200,000. The figures are just an example.

edit: I take that back, your premium SORT OF reflects this cost. Whether youre on medicare or private insurance, you're paying them to negotiate down from that $500,000. Private insurance says we'll pay 400, medicare says we'll pay 380.

So, we know you aren't a doctor or work at a hospital or insurance company.....

[.blank cd]

Ok, let's break down the numbers in the "utopian healthcare single payer system".

In 2010, there were 194,296,087 people between 18-65 (working age). Not all of these people actually worked, actually only about 64% of them, but for the sake of this situation, lets assume that every single one of them was employed full-time (no students, no stay at home moms, no unemployed - you know, utopia).

Health expenditures in the United States neared $2.6 trillion in 2010. We will use a little smaller number for this discussion, just to be more than fair - 2,550,000,000,000.

Stop right here before you continue. Assume the hospitals are NO LONGER tripling charges to cover people that dont pay, and divide 2.6T by 3

Then remember that your average person pays 10-20% of their premium, the company they work for pays the rest. This is what already happens.

Now...go.

[.blank cd]

So, we know you aren't a doctor or work at a hospital or insurance company.....

Hospitals admit that they do this. This isnt news. Im not taking a single dollar away from what the doctor makes. Im taking away from the overcharging, thats all im taking away from.

[David88vert]

Stop right here before you continue. Assume the hospitals are NO LONGER tripling charges to cover people that dont pay, and divide 2.6T by 3

Then remember that your average person pays 10-20% of their premium, the company they work for pays the rest. This is what already happens.

Now...go.

You are so wrong on this. You are assuming that they will cut their charges - but they won't. There is no evidence that they would, and I already showed you that they wouldn't You forget that the hospitals are not owned by the federal government, but by local goverments and private corporations. Are you just planning to seize all of these facilities? Are you going to conscript the doctors?

Again, you assume that the average person works for a company that pays that much, but the reality is that many people have their own private insurance - and that is why there is a market for that. I know quite a few families that pay out over a grand out of their pocket every month for their insurance coverage. I work with contractors on a daily basis, and most of them have private insurance, and all of them spend over a grand every month out of pocket to cover their family. And these are not Cadillac plans or rich people either.

Now, go back and read all of what I typed. Don't just stop if you don't like the sound of it. The numbers don't lie.

[David88vert]

Hospitals admit that they do this. This isnt news. Im not taking a single dollar away from what the doctor makes. Im taking away from the overcharging, thats all im taking away from.

Wrong. Any doctor who is not on a set salary, or works for an hourly wage, would be negatively impacted in the amount that they would bring home each year.

[.blank cd]

You are so wrong on this. You are assuming that they will cut their charges - but they won't. There is no evidence that they would, and I already showed you that they wouldn't.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree here. This whole plan works on hospitals cutting the overcharging to cover people that can't pay by giving everyone a way to pay. There's no evidence they won't, but that's how this plan works and how it's funded.

[Sinfix_15]

I could care less if you conform to my beliefs or not. And you'll never win the anti-christian argument. Im pretty pro christianity, Im just also anti-being-a-bigot-and-thinly-veiled-racist-whilst-using-an-imaginary-entity-and-stortybook-to-justify-being-an-asshole

Your belief system requires my forced participation. In your liberal utopia where everyone in need is cared for, im one of the people working to fund it against my will.

If you're against racist using imaginary things to justify their behavior..... then you need to take a real close look at the black community.

[Vteckidd]

Tax it. Sticking all the premiums on your income tax. You pay the premium you pay now, your company pays the rest, just like whats happening now.

Again, you cannot tax people enough to cover a single payer system, i already demonstrated that. Without competition, there is no incentive to bring prices down, so this $500,000 procedure will not come down, it most likely will increase.

I see why you keep assuming it, but respectfully you are wrong

[.blank cd]

Your belief system requires my forced participation. In your liberal utopia where everyone in need is cared for, im one of the people working to fund it against my will.

You are already funding it against your will and you will be until you die. If that's a problem for you, move somewhere where they don't fund it against your will, or move to another industrialized country. You are fucked either way. It's the system the people decided on. If there was another vote today on it, the system would pass overwhelmingly again, and the people who feel they're being robbed, like you, that have some idealogical aversion to progressive taxation, because they believe theyre working to pay for some lazy moocher, will continue to be a blip on the radar.

[Vteckidd]

what part about "government involvement always inflates prices" do you not understand? The other thing i find kinda funny is you assume the lowered cost of healthcare aka savings somehow translates to covering more people?

The simple answer is single payer is impossible to work, it cannot happen. Well , it can, but it will seriously lower standard of care, lower quality, and inflate prices beyond what we currently have.

The way to lower cost is to increase competition, have more options available. People need to purchase their own healthcare as it is a service, and services should be shopped and not free

[Sinfix_15]

You are already funding it against your will and you will be until you die. If that's a problem for you, move somewhere where they don't fund it against your will, or move to another industrialized country. You are fucked either way. It's the system the people decided on. If there was another vote today on it, the system would pass overwhelmingly again, and the people who feel they're being robbed, like you, that have some idealogical aversion to progressive taxation, because they believe theyre working to pay for some lazy moocher, will continue to be a blip on the radar.

It's normal for 1 out of 7 people in the world's most advanced civilization to be on food stamps right?

I dont want to get rid of the system, i want the system tightened up.... a lot. Something "your side" has no interest in doing. I am working to pay for lazy moochers, but unfortunately..... those lazy moochers vote overwhelming left and your king will make sure not to do anything to ruffle their feathers and lose the voter base. We live in a society where a homeless crackhead's vote counts the same as a doctor's. The left has mastered the manipulation of bottom feeders. The policies being put in place by the left will only breed more of entitlement society and expand their legion of loyal voters.

[David88vert]

Then we'll have to agree to disagree here. This whole plan works on hospitals cutting the overcharging to cover people that can't pay by giving everyone a way to pay. There's no evidence they won't, but that's how this plan works and how it's funded.

Yes, on this point, we have to disagree. You keep stating that we already pay it and that the costs will not rise - but Obama disagrees with you.
First in order to help pay for the cost of Obamacare businesses and families will pay an additional .9% tax on taxable income and 3.8% capital gains exceeding $200k / $250k. If you choose not to purchase insurance (and can afford it) there is a 1% tax in 2014, it raises to a 2.5% tax in 2016 and adjusts for inflation.
Even Obama admits that it seems some insurance companies are raising costs to capitalize now, "grandfather you into higher rates" before it becomes illegal to do so in 2014.
Also, for families that do not purchase insurance, the tax will be $2,085 or 2.5% percent of household income, whichever is greater.
ObamaCare increases taxes on unearned income by 3.8%. This also applies to home sales over a certain amount.
Starting in 2013, ObamaCare taxes individuals with earnings above $200,000 and married couples making more than $250,000. This tax is an increase to the Medicare part A payroll tax. It's an increase of 2.35%, up from the current 1.45% ( a .9% Medicare payroll tax hike), on adjusted income over the threshold. This group will also pay a 3.8% unearned income tax on interest, dividends, annuities, royalties, rents, and gains on the sale of investments over the threshold.

You want to see how much you will pay? Health Reform Subsidy Calculator - Kaiser Health Reform
Obama keeps saying that if your family makes 400% above the poverty level, then you wont see a change. What he doesn't say is what happens at 425%.
For a normal family of four, 400% of the poverty level is $92,200. If the head of the household is between 20-60 years old, the cost is $8,901, according to Obama. Subsidy amounts vary from $238-$15K, but we'll stay in the middle at 40 years old, so it would be $3,229 in subsidy.
Now, take the same situation, but for an IT professional making $100K, the cost dramatically change. A 20 year old pays $9,139, a 40 year old pays $12,130, and a 60 year old pays $24,042 - each year. There are no subsidys for any of them. This the is the math that Obama does not tell the whole truth on. You have to look and investigate to find the numbers.



We can both agree that the current system needs massive improvement, and we can agree that single payer should not be completely ruled out. I would like to have a society where everyone has health coverage, and it certainly is possible, but there are major obstacles that need to be addressed first.

[bu villain]

Most doctors want to be doctors because its helping people, but , most want to be compensated because their costs are $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Advertising is bad now? Profit is bad now? Are you fucking kidding me?

the BEST doctors ADVERTISE and count on making a PROFIT. do you know what it takes to be a WORLD CLASS DOCTOR? SURGEON? ARE YOU AN EXPERT ON IT?

I don't understand. I never said advertising is wrong nor did I say profit was bad. All I said was that I would prefer a doctor whose primary concern was helping people and making large amounts of money and advertising was secondary. I certainly didn't mean to imply advertising and making money makes you a bad doctor. I'm certainly not a world class doctor but I'm not sure what that had to do with anything. I never stated being a doctor was easy or that they shouldn't be compensated.

What do you do for a living?

Engineering but no need to get into personal lives.

Actually, I can introduce you to a lot of people that fit both of those 2 types that I described.

I'm sure you could and I'm not doubting the existence of the people you or blank described, just that policy shouldn't be based on anecdotes (even if you have a lot of them). Anecdotes are powerful persuasion devices that can evoke strong emotions which is why they often cloud people's judgement when it comes to the bigger picture.

Sounds like you think that utopia can exist if we simply steal from the rich and give to the poor - even if the poor stay poor because they do not want to put out the effort to better their own lives.

I guess I don't see why doing something that every other developed country in the world does is somehow an unrealistic utopia. I have lived in a country with socialized healthcare and I happen to prefer it. I'm not arguing that single payer would solve our healthcare cost problem but I don't think it would prevent us from solving it either. I'm not going to argue with your ideological view that taxes are stealing and poor people deserve to be poor lest we get too off topic.

[David88vert]

Our local channel 5 news is reporting that insurance companies are seeing a 32 percent increase in costs due to Obamacare already. According to this mornings news report, it is expected thst these costs will be passed down to the consumers. The insurance companies are seeing a sharp increase in the amount of people being added who make sick claims.
In other words, a lot of the people buying insurance now are not the healthy ones, as Obama claimed would be added. Instead, it is more sick people buying policies. Thats the opposite of what Obama claimed would happen.
Turn on the news this morning and see for yourself.

[BanginJimmy]

I cant exactly say I'm surprised since I, and many others, have been saying this was going to happen since 2009.

[bu villain]

definitely expected that adding sick people to insurance rolls is going to increase premiums but the alternative is making it harder (ie., more expensive) for sick people to get health insurance. That is why our priority should be decreasing costs. I'm sure it won't be too hard to get everyone to agree on how to do that.

[Sinfix_15]

definitely expected that adding sick people to insurance rolls is going to increase premiums but the alternative is making it harder (ie., more expensive) for sick people to get health insurance. That is why our priority should be decreasing costs. I'm sure it won't be too hard to get everyone to agree on how to do that.

We should let the government keep controlling it. They have a knack for making things more efficient and cost effective.