What is the point? Let's say that those administrative costs are for large salaries and bonuses (which I assume you are implying), so what? If the govt gets involved then all of the sudden these health insurance companies have to cut costs to compete (not with eachother but the gov) and guess what, it won't be worth it for them to stay in business. They do it to MAKE MONEY. Then we are all stuck with the public "option". Why is that bad? Because now we are all at their mercy, and they are historically, factually inefficient. Much more so than the private sector, this is not a matter of opinion. Even more troublesome is the fact that u will be obliged to take the "option" by law, and people were worried about the patriot act infinging on their freedom (me too btw).
a person interested in facts instead of trying to bolster his preconcieved notions might look at the example of canada in the article and see that their overhead costs are about half of private insurance.
ever notice that there are private colleges and state colleges and they both coexist? there are private toll roads and public roads. private insurance will find a nitch. the rest of your post is just nonsense.
I'll take your word for it, but that wasn't what I asked. What will be the US federal governments administrative costs of administering any sort of universal heath care? Including the current bill. So us poor dumb slobs who just want to know the truth can compare apples to apples.
someone turn on the lightswitch for lucrum. ok here goes. i will say it loud so you can understand: PROBABLY ABOUT THE SAME AS IT COSTS CANADA SINCE WE HAVE A SIMILAR POPULATION AND USE SIMILAR MEDICINE.
State schools are not as good as private schools on avg. Private roads built by private entities, public roads built by state, county, federal gov, makes sense for each to toll what they built. Health insurance was created in the PRIVATE sector, why should they now have to find a "nitch"? And which part of my post was nonsense? If u think the patriot act was unconstitutional, then how is forcing people at gunpoint to buy your product, not? You couldn't have been refering to the part about the government being inefficient as nonsense, could you? In case you were please list the government agencies, programs, entities that are profitable.
just for clarification i dont support the mandate or the current bill. i think a single payer system should be financed by higher taxes just like many other programs already are. since when should government programs be profitable? the government is supposed to be in the business of providing services the people want and extracting taxes to pay for those services.
Okay, so let's assume that I agree with you (which I don't), that the government is supposed to give people services they want by extracting taxes. If the government option will always cost money, then it should ONLY be implemented if the private sector would lose money as well. Otherwise why not nationalize everything? This is not the case with health care, there are ways to cut costs without nationalization.