Government vs. Capitalist Health Care Systems

[Phantasmal]

Tell me, are they happy with bats wings and frog jelly, as opposed to modernized American health care? Should we simply abandon these billion dollar research projects and focus on bats and frogs instead? Wow, seems like we could save a LOT of money that way!

Statistics show nearly ALL foreign people of wealth and means, will travel to the US for medical treatment of life-threatening illness. Statistics also show that nearly no one in the US will venture elsewhere for such treatment.... save for the bat wing and frog jelly enthusiast. IF your foreign examples of health care were so great and wonderful, we'd see people flocking there for treatment, and we don't.... we see them flocking HERE instead!

You've addressed all the points one at a time and in total, it makes no difference, all your points have been refuted and you have no rebuttal to the points you've been presented. You can continue to repeat your points, one at a time or in total, it won't matter, you are still wrong, and still haven't addressed the counterpoints.

Actually, Dixie, it seems more US citizens are seeking treatment outside the USA then those coming here or treatment.

United States
A McKinsey and Co. report from 2008 found that a plurality of an estimated 60,000 to 85,000 medical tourists were traveling to the United States for the purpose of receiving in-patient medical care;[84] the same McKinsey study estimated that 750,000 American medical tourists traveled from the United States to other countries in 2007 (up from 500,000 in 2006).[85] The availability of advanced medical technology and sophisticated training of physicians are cited as driving motivators for growth in foreigners traveling to the U.S. for medical care,[84] whereas the low costs for hospital stays and major/complex procedures at Western-accredited medical facilities abroad are cited as major motivators for American travelers.[85] Also, it has been noted that the decline in value of the U.S. dollar is offering additional incentive for foreign travel to the U.S., although cost differences between the US and many locations in Asia far outweigh[clarification needed] any currency fluctuations.
Several major medical centers and teaching hospitals offer international patient centers that cater to patients from foreign countries who seek medical treatment in the U.S.[86] Many of these organizations offer service coordinators to assist international patients with arrangements for medical care, accommodations, finances and transportation including air ambulance services.
Many locations in the US that offer medical care comparable in price to foreign medical facilities are not Joint Commission Accredited.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism

 

[apple0154]

Tell me, are they happy with bats wings and frog jelly, as opposed to modernized American health care? Should we simply abandon these billion dollar research projects and focus on bats and frogs instead? Wow, seems like we could save a LOT of money that way!

Statistics show nearly ALL foreign people of wealth and means, will travel to the US for medical treatment of life-threatening illness. Statistics also show that nearly no one in the US will venture elsewhere for such treatment.... save for the bat wing and frog jelly enthusiast. IF your foreign examples of health care were so great and wonderful, we'd see people flocking there for treatment, and we don't.... we see them flocking HERE instead!

You've addressed all the points one at a time and in total, it makes no difference, all your points have been refuted and you have no rebuttal to the points you've been presented. You can continue to repeat your points, one at a time or in total, it won't matter, you are still wrong, and still haven't addressed the counterpoints.

I addressed the point mentioned here about people going to the US for treatment. People will go anywhere they think they have a chance for a cure. If US medical care was that superior we would see a noticeable increase in longevity and statistics tell us that is not the case. Again, RESEARCH. Unless you can show some recognized statistics that people in countries with government medical are dying sooner than those in the US your assertion doesn't hold water.

Now, what's your next point? We'll take this step by step if we have to.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That's exactly right. It does affect the cost.

NO IT DOES NOT! If you and I have dinner together (god forbid), and I pick up the tab... does the dinner somehow cost less money? Does the cashier say; "Oh well, Mr. Dixie, you're paying for both meals, so we're only going to charge you half!"? Nope... the cost of our meal is the same, regardless of whether we go dutch or which one of us pays for it. With health care, you have changed who picks up the tab. You haven't done a thing about the cost.

Right, again.

No, you're wrong again. If we go to dinner and our wives come along, it isn't going to cost less when we pay the tab. What you are saying here, completely defies logic. How can you think we can cover millions of extra people, and it's not going to cost more money to do so?

Three out of three. Excellent!!

And again, you defy logic with your beliefs that greater demand causes lower price. Have you EVER studied ANY economics?

Now I'll explain my previous 3 answers. And, BTW, medical care is not what's causing countries to "burn to the ground".

Good, I am looking forward to this! And btw, countries are burning to the ground because they are broke from paying for shit like this.

OK. Point one. "You seem to think that changing the responsibility of who pays, somehow effects the cost."

Absolutely! Here's how. A government decides to supply a certain pill at no charge to the citizens. Said pill is currently sold for 75 cents which each citizen has to pay for out of pocket. Naturally, each citizen will decide if they want to purchase that pill. In the case of hypertension the vast majority of citizens have no symptoms. Are they going to spend $20.00/mth on medication that will not improve how they feel? The fact is they feel just fine.

Now, the government has a little chat with the drug company. Say, for example, 30% more people should be taking that drug but they feel fine so they are not buying it. The government will offer the pill to all the citizens requiring it, however, they're willing to pay 60 cents a pill. The price of the pill will drop 20% but sales will increase 30%. The drug company makes money, the citizens are healthier and all society saves by preventing citizens from having strokes, etc. Families are not devastated by the bread winner becoming incapacitated and the spouse and children are not thrown on the street.

Holy Fuck, what a mindless piece of drivel! Where do I begin? This is so profoundly retarded, I can't even find a point at which to start. First of all, the government can't decide to supply a pill, the government doesn't make pills. You recognize this, when you say the government will 'have a little chat' with the drug company. You seem to believe the drug company has some motivation to give the government a discount, but you haven't explained this at all. We are just going to ASSUME the capitalist drug company is willing to fork over the pills at a discount. But why? If the government has made this mandatory, and the drug company knows the government HAS to do this, why in the hell would their price go down and not up? I can show you countless government contract invoices for $500 hammers and toilet seats, to prove my point.

Point two. "You seem to believe covering millions of extra people is somehow going to cost less money."

Exactly. Not only will the cost of medication decrease but the number of individuals who are stricken due to not taking the medication will be drastically reduced. The medical costs for a stroke patient is astronomical not to mention the cost of welfare for the remaining family members. Tally up the cost for one patient plus welfare for the spouse and, say, two children. Then compare that to $20.00/mth.

But you are basing this fallacy on your last fallacy being true, when it's not. Then, you are presuming an awful lot, including, that people will take a free pill as opposed to one that costs 75 cents, even though they still don't have symptoms. You've not explained this, and you can't. We're to just believe that people who would otherwise not bother with a pill, would suddenly become enthusiastic about taking it because it's free. This just doesn't even make sense, even if you are retarded. You still haven't addressed the fact that you've merely switched who is responsible for paying the bill. Now, in your world, I suppose it does cost less for the person receiving the benefit, but the government is still having to pay for it, so the cost is still there, it hasn't changed. And with millions more for the government to have to buy pills for, the cost is going to increase. Supply and demand.

Point three. "You think creating considerably more demand for health care, will ultimately mean the cost goes down."

Of course that's what it means. I can't believe you wrote such a thing. How much did computers cost in 1990? 2000? Today? For being a capitalist it appears you're ignorant of the most basic aspect of capitalism.

No, it's just the opposite. Believe it, I wrote it, and will write it again.... price is determined by supply and demand. In 1990, no one had a computer, everyone wanted one. Supply could only provide X number of computers, although many more people wanted one. Therefore, the price, because of the demand and supply, is high. Ten years later, after many people now have a computer, and there is less demand, the supply side has increased its production, and are able to meet whatever demand is there. Since there is less demand and more supply, the price goes down.

There is no such animal as "Free Health Care." And when we are dealing with something as profoundly and personally as important as health care, the expense is no object.

OK. Now I know you’re insane. You’re a blithering idiot! Tell that to the 45,000 people who died last year.

What 45,000 people? The mythical lot you claim have died because they lacked an insurance policy? Show me someone who has ever expired because they didn't have a document? They don't exist, apple! This is a mythical number you have pulled out of your ass to make an inane point. It has failed once again to do so.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. A person requiring an operation doesn’t give a damn if there are expensive paintings on the lobby walls or whether the chairs are leather or vinyl covered. The person seeking cancer treatments doesn’t give a damn if the gazebo is covered in roses. They want treatment. Plain and simple. Illness is not a holiday where one chooses the amenities of a hotel.

No, they want the BEST treatment. The BEST doctors, the BEST nurses, and the BEST hospitals. If paintings and leather chairs make the consumer feel they are getting the BEST, then so be it, that's what the consumer wants. What they don't want, is inadequate and inefficient governmental care.

Of course it lowers cost. One example is insurance companies have different forms required for doctors to fill out. One standardized form will save money. Every insurance company requires a building and staff. Surely you’re able to realize, if combined, the savings would be immense.

LMFAOoo... you are a hoot! So you really believe that involving GOVERNMENT in the process will lead to less forms and red tape?????? Who's insane again???

As to the law of supply and demand I covered that earlier.

God, please... don't remind us!

Wrong. Don’t take my word for it.

Oh you have absolutely no worries about that, apple! None at all!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I addressed the point mentioned here about people going to the US for treatment. People will go anywhere they think they have a chance for a cure. If US medical care was that superior we would see a noticeable increase in longevity and statistics tell us that is not the case. Again, RESEARCH. Unless you can show some recognized statistics that people in countries with government medical are dying sooner than those in the US your assertion doesn't hold water.

Now, what's your next point? We'll take this step by step if we have to.

Again, you are under the false assumption that increased availability to health care means greater longevity, and that is simply not a true statement. Look at any metro area, versus a rural area, and you will find, in spite of adequate health care available, the metro dweller has shorter longevity. Now, this is largely due to stress of living in the city, they believe, but the point is, abundance of health care doesn't make people live longer.

You continue to use examples of isolated European countries, where there is no real population growth and no illegal immigration. Extremely cold and small areas, where the people don't travel much and don't venture out of the house much in the winter. They live longer because of this lifestyle, not because of health care. I have refuted this point several times, and you continue to simply repeat it as if it's the gospel truth, without anything to support your inane beliefs.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Actually, Dixie, it seems more US citizens are seeking treatment outside the USA then those coming here or treatment.

United States
A McKinsey and Co. report from 2008 found that a plurality of an estimated 60,000 to 85,000 medical tourists were traveling to the United States for the purpose of receiving in-patient medical care;[84] the same McKinsey study estimated that 750,000 American medical tourists traveled from the United States to other countries in 2007 (up from 500,000 in 2006).[85] The availability of advanced medical technology and sophisticated training of physicians are cited as driving motivators for growth in foreigners traveling to the U.S. for medical care,[84] whereas the low costs for hospital stays and major/complex procedures at Western-accredited medical facilities abroad are cited as major motivators for American travelers.[85] Also, it has been noted that the decline in value of the U.S. dollar is offering additional incentive for foreign travel to the U.S., although cost differences between the US and many locations in Asia far outweigh[clarification needed] any currency fluctuations.
Several major medical centers and teaching hospitals offer international patient centers that cater to patients from foreign countries who seek medical treatment in the U.S.[86] Many of these organizations offer service coordinators to assist international patients with arrangements for medical care, accommodations, finances and transportation including air ambulance services.
Many locations in the US that offer medical care comparable in price to foreign medical facilities are not Joint Commission Accredited.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism

Actually Rana, thank you for making my point!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Actually, Dixie, it seems more US citizens are seeking treatment outside the USA then those coming here or treatment.

United States
A McKinsey and Co. report from 2008 found that a plurality of an estimated 60,000 to 85,000 medical tourists were traveling to the United States for the purpose of receiving in-patient medical care;[84] the same McKinsey study estimated that 750,000 American medical tourists traveled from the United States to other countries in 2007 (up from 500,000 in 2006).[85] The availability of advanced medical technology and sophisticated training of physicians are cited as driving motivators for growth in foreigners traveling to the U.S. for medical care,[84] whereas the low costs for hospital stays and major/complex procedures at Western-accredited medical facilities abroad are cited as major motivators for American travelers.[85] Also, it has been noted that the decline in value of the U.S. dollar is offering additional incentive for foreign travel to the U.S., although cost differences between the US and many locations in Asia far outweigh[clarification needed] any currency fluctuations.
Several major medical centers and teaching hospitals offer international patient centers that cater to patients from foreign countries who seek medical treatment in the U.S.[86] Many of these organizations offer service coordinators to assist international patients with arrangements for medical care, accommodations, finances and transportation including air ambulance services.
Many locations in the US that offer medical care comparable in price to foreign medical facilities are not Joint Commission Accredited.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism

Actually Rana, thank you for making my point!

 

[apple0154]

NO IT DOES NOT! If you and I have dinner together (god forbid), and I pick up the tab... does the dinner somehow cost less money? Does the cashier say; "Oh well, Mr. Dixie, you're paying for both meals, so we're only going to charge you half!"? Nope... the cost of our meal is the same, regardless of whether we go dutch or which one of us pays for it. With health care, you have changed who picks up the tab. You haven't done a thing about the cost.

Dixie, Dixie, Dixie. Years ago, I participated in a chat room and every so often the members in one area would decide to meet. NY, Pennsylvania, Ontario. Etc. The group organizer would contact a number of hotels and seek a group rate. If 10 or more rooms were rented the price per room was reduced. Novel idea, huh? Who would have thought?

If I go to my local donut shop and buy 6 muffins I pay less per muffin than if I bought one muffin, left the store, returned and bought one more, left and returned………Get the picture?

Now, if a hospital operating room is built and equipped it costs money. If it is used once a day or four times a day the tax on the building is still the same. The cost to heat and air-condition the room remains almost the same. The cost to lay the special floor (you’ll notice operating room floors have metal fibers running through them to avoid static electricity that could result in a KABOOM if oxygen is present) cost the same whether used once a day or four times a day. That’s why it costs less money the more the room is used.

Finally, as long as dinner does not consist of uncooked food such as suchi or steak tartare I’m game. A nice cold beer to wash it all down would be most endearing. Just saying.

No, you're wrong again. If we go to dinner and our wives come along, it isn't going to cost less when we pay the tab. What you are saying here, completely defies logic. How can you think we can cover millions of extra people, and it's not going to cost more money to do so?

We’re not talking about 2 or 3 extra people. We’re talking about 45,000 that we know of and thousands who have put off treating non-fatal illnesses but live day to day in misery. As I explained above greater numbers lower individual cost. Oh, about the wives, I was hoping for a little dinner entertainment, if you get my drift. Dancers? “Friendly” waitresses. Something to get the digestive juices flowing.

And again, you defy logic with your beliefs that greater demand causes lower price. Have you EVER studied ANY economics?

Have you ever purchased a computer? Have you ever noticed a new product is always expensive and the price drops as more and more people purchase it?

Good, I am looking forward to this! And btw, countries are burning to the ground because they are broke from paying for shit like this.

No, they’re broke due to corruption and upside down priorities. Start by ensuring the citizens have food and shelter and medical care. THEN move on to other projects.

Holy Fuck, what a mindless piece of drivel! Where do I begin? This is so profoundly retarded, I can't even find a point at which to start. First of all, the government can't decide to supply a pill, the government doesn't make pills. You recognize this, when you say the government will 'have a little chat' with the drug company. You seem to believe the drug company has some motivation to give the government a discount, but you haven't explained this at all. We are just going to ASSUME the capitalist drug company is willing to fork over the pills at a discount. But why? If the government has made this mandatory, and the drug company knows the government HAS to do this, why in the hell would their price go down and not up? I can show you countless government contract invoices for $500 hammers and toilet seats, to prove my point.

I’ll type this real slowly. $500 hammers is corruption. Someone knew about those hammers. The product has to be billed and the receiver, the military, has to have someone look at the bill before it’s paid so it took at least two people to cause that to happen and probably another person who audits expenses. Have I ever mentioned the military has become too big? And let’s not forget the Repubs decided to renege on the deal the Super Committee agreed upon last year. Just keep giving the military whatever amount of money it wants. Why would they care how much a hammer costs?

But you are basing this fallacy on your last fallacy being true, when it's not. Then, you are presuming an awful lot, including, that people will take a free pill as opposed to one that costs 75 cents, even though they still don't have symptoms. You've not explained this, and you can't. We're to just believe that people who would otherwise not bother with a pill, would suddenly become enthusiastic about taking it because it's free. This just doesn't even make sense, even if you are retarded. You still haven't addressed the fact that you've merely switched who is responsible for paying the bill. Now, in your world, I suppose it does cost less for the person receiving the benefit, but the government is still having to pay for it, so the cost is still there, it hasn't changed. And with millions more for the government to have to buy pills for, the cost is going to increase. Supply and demand.

We’ve been over the supply and demand. How much did your first computer cost?

As for one taking medication most logical people will take medication if their doctor explains to them why they need it and drug companies will offer a discount if their medication is covered by a government plan because they’ll sell more. What is it about that you don’t understand?

No, it's just the opposite. Believe it, I wrote it, and will write it again.... price is determined by supply and demand. In 1990, no one had a computer, everyone wanted one. Supply could only provide X number of computers, although many more people wanted one. Therefore, the price, because of the demand and supply, is high. Ten years later, after many people now have a computer, and there is less demand, the supply side has increased its production, and are able to meet whatever demand is there. Since there is less demand and more supply, the price goes down.

If there is a shortage but there isn’t any shortage. That’s the point. The drug company that discovers a medication may hold the monopoly for a while but soon generic versions will hit the market. Once the government realizes a company is greedy and refuses to do business the government will also refuse to do business with that company. Their competitor will be selling to the government. New medications will be purchased from the company that does business with the government. If the other company wants to sell only to those who are willing to pay outrageous prices, great, however, he majority of “everyday” medications will be purchased by the government from their competitor. We’ll see how well they do.

What 45,000 people? The mythical lot you claim have died because they lacked an insurance policy? Show me someone who has ever expired because they didn't have a document? They don't exist, apple! This is a mythical number you have pulled out of your ass to make an inane point. It has failed once again to do so.

Of course, Dix. You’re much brighter than those at Harvard who did the study. (Exerpt) Nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance, according to a new study published online today by the American Journal of Public Health. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002. The study, conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance, found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993. (End) http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...s-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/

Talking about pulling a number out of my ass there’s no point in continuing this discussion if you’re going to keep your head in your ass and question the validity of a Harvard study. You’re an idiot.

No, they want the BEST treatment. The BEST doctors, the BEST nurses, and the BEST hospitals. If paintings and leather chairs make the consumer feel they are getting the BEST, then so be it, that's what the consumer wants. What they don't want, is inadequate and inefficient governmental care.

They want care. Period. Affordable care.

LMFAOoo... you are a hoot! So you really believe that involving GOVERNMENT in the process will lead to less forms and red tape?????? Who's insane again???

Look, if you’re not going to do any research we may as well end this debate. You have no idea what government medical is like. You don’t have a clue.

Oh you have absolutely no worries about that, apple! None at all!

Good. Don’t take my word for it. RESEARCH! What do you have against research besides finding out how much of an idiot you are? You have no idea what you’re talking about. I can’t stress that enough. The citizens in EVERY country with government medical insist on keeping it. EVERY country, Dix. No exception. And once ObamaCare takes off (2014?) there will be no going back. “Pay or suffer” medical will go the way of the horse and buggy. That's why the Repubs are fighting so hard. There will be no turning back just as no other country has reverted to a "pay or suffer" system and every country started with one.

Do some research and save bandwidth.

 

[apple0154]

Again, you are under the false assumption that increased availability to health care means greater longevity, and that is simply not a true statement. Look at any metro area, versus a rural area, and you will find, in spite of adequate health care available, the metro dweller has shorter longevity. Now, this is largely due to stress of living in the city, they believe, but the point is, abundance of health care doesn't make people live longer.

You continue to use examples of isolated European countries, where there is no real population growth and no illegal immigration. Extremely cold and small areas, where the people don't travel much and don't venture out of the house much in the winter. They live longer because of this lifestyle, not because of health care. I have refuted this point several times, and you continue to simply repeat it as if it's the gospel truth, without anything to support your inane beliefs.

My God, you're an idiot. French people don't venture out? The English don't go out? European countries don't have illegal immigration?

You're a buffoon.

 

[Althea]

You can say a capitalist only cares about profits, but this again contradicts logic. Let's set up an example. Two capitalists are selling tomatoes on the corner. Using the keystone method, let's say they start out selling tomatoes for $2, and they pay $1 for the tomatoes. That's $1 profit and $1 cost. Now, if profit were all that mattered, one capitalist might buy less than $1 tomatoes, they aren't as good in quality, but they are cheaper, meaning the capitalist will make more profit. But what happens instead, is the consumer demands higher quality, and he loses his customers to the other capitalist. No customers, no profits. Okay... now the other capitalist, wanting to make more profit, as you say, raises his price to $3, which would double his profits. But what happens? The consumer demands a better price, and they seek out the capitalist who is still selling for $2. You see, the capitalist can't ignore consumer demand and merely concern themselves with profit. If they do, they lose the business to some other capitalist, and have NO profit. It is more important than profits, for the capitalist to concern themselves with consumer demand. This may even be of greater importance than profit... Let's say one of our capitalist tomato sellers decides that he might sell more tomatoes if he puts up a tent shade over his stand, so his customers don't have to stand in the sun while they shop... the result, it costs him more to do this, so it eats into his profits a bit, but he gains more customers. More customers equates to greater profits, even though his rate of profit is less than the capitalist without a tent shade.

Capitalists DO care about profits, don't get me wrong, it's just not THE most important thing, as you believe. Of greater importance, is consumer demand, because if you can't meet their demands, you have no customers, and with no customers, there is no profit.

You're purposely oversimplifying. There are a million places to buy tomatoes. How many places are there to buy health insurance? And why don't anti trust laws apply?

And there will be a large demographic who want to make sauce from the tomatoes, and they'll happily buy the cheaper ones. You can compare that group to those who are healthy, and would love to purchase insurance that isn't set up so that the bulk of the premium dollars go toward dividends/bonuses/CEO pay.

And why are you talking about insurance companies in future tense, as if we don't have private insurance at this time, and if we do it, the insurance capitalists will nitpick profitable clients, etc.? You do realize this is currently the system we have, and have had for many years, correct? You do understand, this is the system YOU want to change? When we are talking about a product like insurance, "risk" is everything. The insurance company has to be able to factor risk into cost. They can cover high risk people, but the extra cost has to be offset in some way, and this means the lesser risk customers will have to pay a bit more, and/or maybe the high risk customer has to pay considerably more? That's not just how business works, it's how life works.

I'm talking about 'the future' because your OP proposes options for changing the new health care law. It's still a for profit system, not a nationalized system. And, the high risk demographic is pawned off on Medicare, leaving the money makers (profitable) for the Capitalists.

You haven't addressed the old methodology, whereby ins. companies would drop clients who became 'unprofitable'. Likewise, you haven't addressed the denial of treatment for those who simply won't live long enough for the beaurocracy to decide what treatments are covered.

We aren't talking about tomatoes. We're talking about a captive demographic, who cannot choose to do without tomatoes if the price is too high.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You're purposely oversimplifying.

Well duh! How else do I explain something as complex as capitalism to a moron? It doesn't matter what the product is, whether it's tomatoes or health care insurance. They are both products, sold by capitalist, who have the first and foremost priority of meeting the demands of the consumer. Government is not concerned with the consumer, it doesn't care if you are satisfied, in fact, we are often not satisfied with the government version... that's how we invented UPS.

You haven't addressed the old methodology, whereby ins. companies would drop clients who became 'unprofitable'.

Insurance is a business. It examines risk and probability of claims to determine appropriate premiums. If you wish to include pre-existing conditions, the risk and probability of claims DRAMATICALLY increases. This means, the insurance company can insure these high-risk people, but premiums are going to be enormous. That is not the fault of the insurance company, they merely calculate and assess the risks, and formulate a premium based on those risks and probabilities.

Let's say I have diagnosed stage 4 cancer, and I want you to give me insurance coverage... what would YOU charge me for a monthly premium? $29.99? You think that would cover you? Maybe I'll get better and won't need any medical treatment? Let me send you a check for $29.99 each month, and you pay for all my medical care, sound like a winning proposition to you? Medical care is not cheap, it's certainly not FREE! Someone has to pay for it! You seem to think insurance companies should be the ones to pay, but they are not in business to lose money.

And there will be a large demographic who want to make sauce from the tomatoes, and they'll happily buy the cheaper ones. You can compare that group to those who are healthy, and would love to purchase insurance that isn't set up so that the bulk of the premium dollars go toward dividends/bonuses/CEO pay.

Okay, but that is the difference in a capitalist system versus a government system. With what is being proposed, a nationalized system, you wouldn't have capitalists out there offering these kinds of policies to certain demographics, you'd have your government card and you'd go to the doctor the government said go to, and you'd be treated as the government was compelled to treat you. It is the CAPITALIST system, like what we've always had, that enables insurance companies the flexibility of offering customers many options on health care coverage. During the health care debates, one of the ideas Obama and the Dems refused to listen to, was the Republican proposal for a 'pool' policy, which would do precisely what you just indicated you wanted, give people the option of purchasing a cheap and affordable alternative policy, which would be backed by the government.