Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If your company does not offer you health insurance, you can buy off the exchanges and you will be eligible for the government subsidy if your family income does not exceed 400% of federal poverty level.If any person, call him Bob Smith, takes insurance from the exchange, the government will NOT subsidize them, correct? That would appear to be your assertion here unless I am misreading you.
Many people will drop their employer insurance and many employers will drop their insurance giving their employees no choice EXCEPT to go to the exchanges for their insurance. So the government will not contribute to said purchases, fine, it is harsh but at least people have a choice among the plans and the istuation can be improved with revision and amendment.
Congresscritters are being forced to get their insurance from the exchanges just like employees who are being dropped from their employers insurance.
So WHY should Congresscritters and their employees be treated any differently than Bob Smith? If this part of Obamacare is so draconian for them, why is it thought to be just fine for everyone else that isnt a major contributer to the DNC or a Congresscritter?
If Bob Smith Worked at Bumpkin Incorporated, and they decided that the insurance packages were too expensive, even if that was part of Bob's hiring package, Bob would have no choice but to go to the exchanges. Why should that be any different for Congresscritters?
Getting their own insurance off the exchanges WITHOUT government contribution *IS* what average tax payers will have to do if their employers drop health care insurance...so what makes Congresscritters so exceptional?
No, I think I understand it just fine, thank you for your concern.
AS will a good deal of the REST OF THE COUNTRY, Einstein.
But leftists not living under the conditions that their policies and laws have created for everyone else has long been a hall mark of leftist government from the Jacobins of France, to the Leninists, the Stalinists, the Maoists, Khmer Rougue, etc.
So why should anyone be surprized that leftists in this country dont want to either?
Translated in family income, if you are single, you can get a subsidy with an income up to $46,000. For a family of 4, the subsidy is available for family incomes up to $94,200.
The subsidy puts a cap on your monthly cost of insurance at 2.5% to 9.5% of family income. It also lowers the deductible and yearly maximum out of pocket costs for lower income families.
Only about 15% of Americans will be eligible to buy insurance off the exchanges and most of them will receive a subsidy.
I don't think most of our citizens understand that Obamacare is nothing but opportunity for those who previously had no option but the worst health care possible. If it's not an opportunity for any one of us, like it's not for me, ignore it. Take your better option.
Government, like all good businesses, have already solved how to offer competitive compensation, including health care insurance, that's adequate to attract and hold qualified employees. Obamacare exchanges don't apply to them any more than they do to most large successful companies.
What irritates conservatives is that people they don't like are being offered a better, healthier life, because of successful government.
A more successful country.
They hate that.
All goods and services including healthcare are rationed. In the pass we rationed healthcare like other service, no money, no service. Today rationing is shared activity between you, your insurance company, and your doctor. In the future, healthcare will be rationed based on need. It's unavoidable. In fact, that's what we do in hospitals and emergency rooms now.I have seen a number of things that need to be changed in the ACA.
1. If dependents are not covered by an employer, the dependents are not eligible to use the exchanges and receive the subsidy.
2. If you have to buy individual insurance, the exchanges are great if you are within the limits of the subsidy. However, if your income exceeds the subsidy by just a dollar you can see a large just in your cost. This subsidy needs to be taper.
3. The websites for the exchanges I have seen need big improvements. The context sensitive help is almost worthless. Some of the information being collected is redundant. You have to provide family income but there is no information as what constitutes family income.
4. There is no reason to have so many different website designs. They all collect the same basic information with only small variations by state.
5. The individual mandate penalty as well as the employer mandate penalty is too low.
6. The law needs to change so all states will be required expand Medicaid. Because the Supreme Court have allowed states to make that decision nearly a million people will fall in a coverage gap.
7. Lastly, the best change that could be made is to replace the ACA with single payer. It would be much simpler, provide universal coverage, and cheaper in long run.
Wow! The already uber liberal ACA needs to become even more liberal in your eyes. You're more out to lunch than PMZ. You really want government who has proven to be so inept at so many things to be in charge of health care? Seriously, how badly does government need to fuck something up before you morons open your eyes and realize government is the problem, not the solution? Health care will have to be rationed if government is the single payer. That is an inescapable inevitability.
Medicare processing overhead is about 3 to 5%, much less than private insurance and there is no 10 to 20% insurance company profits to increase healthcare cost. For doctors and hospitals having single payer simplifies billing and is a significant cost reduction. According to 2012 Gallup poll, people are much more satisfied with Medicare than private insurance.
The real basis for the increased government involvement in healthcare, is the growing acceptance that everyone should have the right to healthcare without regard to their financial circumstances. This trend is not going to reverse because people are demanding more and better healthcare.
All goods and services including healthcare are rationed. In the pass we rationed healthcare like other service, no money, no service. Today rationing is shared activity between you, your insurance company, and your doctor. In the future, healthcare will be rationed based on need. It's unavoidable. In fact, that's what we do in hospitals and emergency rooms now.I have seen a number of things that need to be changed in the ACA.
1. If dependents are not covered by an employer, the dependents are not eligible to use the exchanges and receive the subsidy.
2. If you have to buy individual insurance, the exchanges are great if you are within the limits of the subsidy. However, if your income exceeds the subsidy by just a dollar you can see a large just in your cost. This subsidy needs to be taper.
3. The websites for the exchanges I have seen need big improvements. The context sensitive help is almost worthless. Some of the information being collected is redundant. You have to provide family income but there is no information as what constitutes family income.
4. There is no reason to have so many different website designs. They all collect the same basic information with only small variations by state.
5. The individual mandate penalty as well as the employer mandate penalty is too low.
6. The law needs to change so all states will be required expand Medicaid. Because the Supreme Court have allowed states to make that decision nearly a million people will fall in a coverage gap.
7. Lastly, the best change that could be made is to replace the ACA with single payer. It would be much simpler, provide universal coverage, and cheaper in long run.
Wow! The already uber liberal ACA needs to become even more liberal in your eyes. You're more out to lunch than PMZ. You really want government who has proven to be so inept at so many things to be in charge of health care? Seriously, how badly does government need to fuck something up before you morons open your eyes and realize government is the problem, not the solution? Health care will have to be rationed if government is the single payer. That is an inescapable inevitability.
Medicare processing overhead is about 3 to 5%, much less than private insurance and there is no 10 to 20% insurance company profits to increase healthcare cost. For doctors and hospitals having single payer simplifies billing and is a significant cost reduction. According to 2012 Gallup poll, people are much more satisfied with Medicare than private insurance.
The real basis for the increased government involvement in healthcare, is the growing acceptance that everyone should have the right to healthcare without regard to their financial circumstances. This trend is not going to reverse because people are demanding more and better healthcare.
The above is what we call 'passing the buck'. 'No, it's not our spending that's the problem. It's that you, John Q. Taxpayer, aren't giving us enough money.' And the idea that any of the above is actually bad is predicated on the assumption that it's bad if government takes in less money. The only way it's 'bad' is to the politicians who have less money to spend. Them not adjusting their spending accordingly doesn't mean the cuts were a bad idea.
You have a different reaction to massive debt than I do. I'm surprised, given that, of your claim to being a successful businessman.
On the other hand, it's the typical conservative economics that came close to costing us our country and has already cost us much of our economy.
Cut costs and hope something good happens.
Business and government is about growth by great products and satisfied customers. Costs are what they have to be to achieve product and customer satisfaction growth. If that's not true, you aren't in a successful business or government.
Any business that believes that great products and high customer satisfaction are unaffordable, deserves the inevitable end that they face.
The Bushwacker, and you, and most conservatives, don't believe in this country. They don't believe that we have what it takes to be successful. They want to sell off and move on.
If that happens it will be over my dead body.
You're confusing me with someone else. I'm not a businessman, or business owner, if that's what you mean. I certainly do believe in growth through quality products and satisfied customers. I'm not really sure what that has to do with taxes. Perhaps it's simply that you keep jumping to new topics every time you see you're so obviously wrong.
I have seen a number of things that need to be changed in the ACA.
1. If dependents are not covered by an employer, the dependents are not eligible to use the exchanges and receive the subsidy.
2. If you have to buy individual insurance, the exchanges are great if you are within the limits of the subsidy. However, if your income exceeds the subsidy by just a dollar you can see a large just in your cost. This subsidy needs to be taper.
3. The websites for the exchanges I have seen need big improvements. The context sensitive help is almost worthless. Some of the information being collected is redundant. You have to provide family income but there is no information as what constitutes family income.
4. There is no reason to have so many different website designs. They all collect the same basic information with only small variations by state.
5. The individual mandate penalty as well as the employer mandate penalty is too low.
6. The law needs to change so all states will be required expand Medicaid. Because the Supreme Court have allowed states to make that decision nearly a million people will fall in a coverage gap.
7. Lastly, the best change that could be made is to replace the ACA with single payer. It would be much simpler, provide universal coverage, and cheaper in long run.
Wow! The already uber liberal ACA needs to become even more liberal in your eyes. You're more out to lunch than PMZ. You really want government who has proven to be so inept at so many things to be in charge of health care? Seriously, how badly does government need to fuck something up before you morons open your eyes and realize government is the problem, not the solution? Health care will have to be rationed if government is the single payer. That is an inescapable inevitability.
If your company does not offer you health insurance, you can buy off the exchanges and you will be eligible for the government subsidy if your family income does not exceed 400% of federal poverty level.
Translated in family income, if you are single, you can get a subsidy with an income up to $46,000. For a family of 4, the subsidy is available for family incomes up to $94,200.
The subsidy puts a cap on your monthly cost of insurance at 2.5% to 9.5% of family income. It also lowers the deductible and yearly maximum out of pocket costs for lower income families.
Only about 15% of Americans will be eligible to buy insurance off the exchanges and most of them will receive a subsidy.
I don't think most of our citizens understand that Obamacare is nothing but opportunity for those who previously had no option but the worst health care possible. If it's not an opportunity for any one of us, like it's not for me, ignore it. Take your better option.
Government, like all good businesses, have already solved how to offer competitive compensation, including health care insurance, that's adequate to attract and hold qualified employees. Obamacare exchanges don't apply to them any more than they do to most large successful companies.
What irritates conservatives is that people they don't like are being offered a better, healthier life, because of successful government.
A more successful country.
They hate that.
No, they are not motivated by fear that poor people will get medical care, lol, that is a Marxist Big Lie again.
Conservatives are legitimately concerned about the impact this massive program will have on the federal budget which is already way over its head in debt. If this continues we will all lose with hyperinflation or a decades long depression.
All goods and services including healthcare are rationed. In the pass we rationed healthcare like other service, no money, no service. Today rationing is shared activity between you, your insurance company, and your doctor. In the future, healthcare will be rationed based on need. It's unavoidable. In fact, that's what we do in hospitals and emergency rooms now.Wow! The already uber liberal ACA needs to become even more liberal in your eyes. You're more out to lunch than PMZ. You really want government who has proven to be so inept at so many things to be in charge of health care? Seriously, how badly does government need to fuck something up before you morons open your eyes and realize government is the problem, not the solution? Health care will have to be rationed if government is the single payer. That is an inescapable inevitability.
Medicare processing overhead is about 3 to 5%, much less than private insurance and there is no 10 to 20% insurance company profits to increase healthcare cost. For doctors and hospitals having single payer simplifies billing and is a significant cost reduction. According to 2012 Gallup poll, people are much more satisfied with Medicare than private insurance.
The real basis for the increased government involvement in healthcare, is the growing acceptance that everyone should have the right to healthcare without regard to their financial circumstances. This trend is not going to reverse because people are demanding more and better healthcare.
I don't think that your concept of rationing is the same most people use. If I have the cash enough to go buy any insurance I want, then it is not rationed in any sense of the word.
Also, why not a two tier system of private and government controlled health care? Why only single payer?
I have seen a number of things that need to be changed in the ACA.
1. If dependents are not covered by an employer, the dependents are not eligible to use the exchanges and receive the subsidy.
2. If you have to buy individual insurance, the exchanges are great if you are within the limits of the subsidy. However, if your income exceeds the subsidy by just a dollar you can see a large just in your cost. This subsidy needs to be taper.
3. The websites for the exchanges I have seen need big improvements. The context sensitive help is almost worthless. Some of the information being collected is redundant. You have to provide family income but there is no information as what constitutes family income.
4. There is no reason to have so many different website designs. They all collect the same basic information with only small variations by state.
5. The individual mandate penalty as well as the employer mandate penalty is too low.
6. The law needs to change so all states will be required expand Medicaid. Because the Supreme Court have allowed states to make that decision nearly a million people will fall in a coverage gap.
7. Lastly, the best change that could be made is to replace the ACA with single payer. It would be much simpler, provide universal coverage, and cheaper in long run.
I have seen a number of things that need to be changed in the ACA.
1. If dependents are not covered by an employer, the dependents are not eligible to use the exchanges and receive the subsidy.
2. If you have to buy individual insurance, the exchanges are great if you are within the limits of the subsidy. However, if your income exceeds the subsidy by just a dollar you can see a large just in your cost. This subsidy needs to be taper.
3. The websites for the exchanges I have seen need big improvements. The context sensitive help is almost worthless. Some of the information being collected is redundant. You have to provide family income but there is no information as what constitutes family income.
4. There is no reason to have so many different website designs. They all collect the same basic information with only small variations by state.
5. The individual mandate penalty as well as the employer mandate penalty is too low.
6. The law needs to change so all states will be required expand Medicaid. Because the Supreme Court have allowed states to make that decision nearly a million people will fall in a coverage gap.
7. Lastly, the best change that could be made is to replace the ACA with single payer. It would be much simpler, provide universal coverage, and cheaper in long run.
I always respect your posts, but I have to say, you are absolutely insane if you really believe ANYTHING run by the government, and that is exactly what single-payer means, is "cheaper in the long run".
Immie
$115,000??If your company does not offer you health insurance, you can buy off the exchanges and you will be eligible for the government subsidy if your family income does not exceed 400% of federal poverty level.If any person, call him Bob Smith, takes insurance from the exchange, the government will NOT subsidize them, correct? That would appear to be your assertion here unless I am misreading you.
Many people will drop their employer insurance and many employers will drop their insurance giving their employees no choice EXCEPT to go to the exchanges for their insurance. So the government will not contribute to said purchases, fine, it is harsh but at least people have a choice among the plans and the istuation can be improved with revision and amendment.
Congresscritters are being forced to get their insurance from the exchanges just like employees who are being dropped from their employers insurance.
So WHY should Congresscritters and their employees be treated any differently than Bob Smith? If this part of Obamacare is so draconian for them, why is it thought to be just fine for everyone else that isnt a major contributer to the DNC or a Congresscritter?
If Bob Smith Worked at Bumpkin Incorporated, and they decided that the insurance packages were too expensive, even if that was part of Bob's hiring package, Bob would have no choice but to go to the exchanges. Why should that be any different for Congresscritters?
Getting their own insurance off the exchanges WITHOUT government contribution *IS* what average tax payers will have to do if their employers drop health care insurance...so what makes Congresscritters so exceptional?
No, I think I understand it just fine, thank you for your concern.
AS will a good deal of the REST OF THE COUNTRY, Einstein.
But leftists not living under the conditions that their policies and laws have created for everyone else has long been a hall mark of leftist government from the Jacobins of France, to the Leninists, the Stalinists, the Maoists, Khmer Rougue, etc.
So why should anyone be surprized that leftists in this country dont want to either?
Translated in family income, if you are single, you can get a subsidy with an income up to $46,000. For a family of 4, the subsidy is available for family incomes up to $94,200.
The subsidy puts a cap on your monthly cost of insurance at 2.5% to 9.5% of family income. It also lowers the deductible and yearly maximum out of pocket costs for lower income families.
Only about 15% of Americans will be eligible to buy insurance off the exchanges and most of them will receive a subsidy.
So if this affects only those $115,000, then why do Democrats keep whining about those poor Congressional staffers that have to have the subsidy?
Single payer insurance doesn't preclude private insurance because single payer will not pay all medical bills. Medicare only pays 80% of covered medial services and does not cover all healthcare options plus there is no maximum yearly out of pocket costs. So even with Medicare, you can be left with some very large medical bills.All goods and services including healthcare are rationed. In the pass we rationed healthcare like other service, no money, no service. Today rationing is shared activity between you, your insurance company, and your doctor. In the future, healthcare will be rationed based on need. It's unavoidable. In fact, that's what we do in hospitals and emergency rooms now.Wow! The already uber liberal ACA needs to become even more liberal in your eyes. You're more out to lunch than PMZ. You really want government who has proven to be so inept at so many things to be in charge of health care? Seriously, how badly does government need to fuck something up before you morons open your eyes and realize government is the problem, not the solution? Health care will have to be rationed if government is the single payer. That is an inescapable inevitability.
Medicare processing overhead is about 3 to 5%, much less than private insurance and there is no 10 to 20% insurance company profits to increase healthcare cost. For doctors and hospitals having single payer simplifies billing and is a significant cost reduction. According to 2012 Gallup poll, people are much more satisfied with Medicare than private insurance.
The real basis for the increased government involvement in healthcare, is the growing acceptance that everyone should have the right to healthcare without regard to their financial circumstances. This trend is not going to reverse because people are demanding more and better healthcare.
I don't think that your concept of rationing is the same most people use. If I have the cash enough to go buy any insurance I want, then it is not rationed in any sense of the word.
Also, why not a two tier system of private and government controlled health care? Why only single payer?
Most people's medical care is rationed by their insurance company. The company decide what procedures will be covered. Companies that have networks, will decide what providers you are allowed to see. You can only go in hospital with approval of your insurance company. The companies use the approval process to control cost and thus ration healthcare based on their financial needs, not your medical needs.All goods and services including healthcare are rationed. In the pass we rationed healthcare like other service, no money, no service. Today rationing is shared activity between you, your insurance company, and your doctor. In the future, healthcare will be rationed based on need. It's unavoidable. In fact, that's what we do in hospitals and emergency rooms now.Wow! The already uber liberal ACA needs to become even more liberal in your eyes. You're more out to lunch than PMZ. You really want government who has proven to be so inept at so many things to be in charge of health care? Seriously, how badly does government need to fuck something up before you morons open your eyes and realize government is the problem, not the solution? Health care will have to be rationed if government is the single payer. That is an inescapable inevitability.
Medicare processing overhead is about 3 to 5%, much less than private insurance and there is no 10 to 20% insurance company profits to increase healthcare cost. For doctors and hospitals having single payer simplifies billing and is a significant cost reduction. According to 2012 Gallup poll, people are much more satisfied with Medicare than private insurance.
The real basis for the increased government involvement in healthcare, is the growing acceptance that everyone should have the right to healthcare without regard to their financial circumstances. This trend is not going to reverse because people are demanding more and better healthcare.
I don't think that your concept of rationing is the same most people use. If I have the cash enough to go buy any insurance I want, then it is not rationed in any sense of the word.
Also, why not a two tier system of private and government controlled health care? Why only single payer?
I'm not claiming that there is any constitution right to healthcare, although some people would probably argue the general welfare clause. What I'm saying is more and more people feel they should have the right to quality healthcare regardless of their financial situation so no one need suffer or die from a serious health problem just because they can not afford the cost of treatment.All goods and services including healthcare are rationed. In the pass we rationed healthcare like other service, no money, no service. Today rationing is shared activity between you, your insurance company, and your doctor. In the future, healthcare will be rationed based on need. It's unavoidable. In fact, that's what we do in hospitals and emergency rooms now.Wow! The already uber liberal ACA needs to become even more liberal in your eyes. You're more out to lunch than PMZ. You really want government who has proven to be so inept at so many things to be in charge of health care? Seriously, how badly does government need to fuck something up before you morons open your eyes and realize government is the problem, not the solution? Health care will have to be rationed if government is the single payer. That is an inescapable inevitability.
Medicare processing overhead is about 3 to 5%, much less than private insurance and there is no 10 to 20% insurance company profits to increase healthcare cost. For doctors and hospitals having single payer simplifies billing and is a significant cost reduction. According to 2012 Gallup poll, people are much more satisfied with Medicare than private insurance.
The real basis for the increased government involvement in healthcare, is the growing acceptance that everyone should have the right to healthcare without regard to their financial circumstances. This trend is not going to reverse because people are demanding more and better healthcare.
You seem misinformed on what a right actually is in the first place. Not that health care is even a legally assured right or even an individual human right, but if it were just because something is a right doesn't mean you get to force someone else to provide it for you. You have the right to a gun too, under the constitution. That doesn't mean that I, via the government, am required to provide you one.
You say it's rationed already. So what's the reason we're switching? Why would I pay taxes into a system that's need based? At least with private insurance I know health care is going to be there for me. Why would I pay the government, in your argument, not to provide me health care, but to be the decider on whether or not I even receive health care?
Most people's medical care is rationed by their insurance company. The company decide what procedures will be covered. Companies that have networks, will decide what providers you are allowed to see. You can only go in hospital with approval of your insurance company. The companies use the approval process to control cost and thus ration healthcare based on their financial needs, not your medical needs.All goods and services including healthcare are rationed. In the pass we rationed healthcare like other service, no money, no service. Today rationing is shared activity between you, your insurance company, and your doctor. In the future, healthcare will be rationed based on need. It's unavoidable. In fact, that's what we do in hospitals and emergency rooms now.
Medicare processing overhead is about 3 to 5%, much less than private insurance and there is no 10 to 20% insurance company profits to increase healthcare cost. For doctors and hospitals having single payer simplifies billing and is a significant cost reduction. According to 2012 Gallup poll, people are much more satisfied with Medicare than private insurance.
The real basis for the increased government involvement in healthcare, is the growing acceptance that everyone should have the right to healthcare without regard to their financial circumstances. This trend is not going to reverse because people are demanding more and better healthcare.
I don't think that your concept of rationing is the same most people use. If I have the cash enough to go buy any insurance I want, then it is not rationed in any sense of the word.
Also, why not a two tier system of private and government controlled health care? Why only single payer?
Insurance companies make money by collecting premiums, not paying claims.
It's interesting how concerned Republicans are about the ability of the wealthy to buy the best health care including cosmetic surgery. And the best cars. And the best mcmansion. And the best trophy wives. And the best resort property. And the best vacations. And the best recreational drugs.
The answer will be provide by the success or failure of the ACA. If it's not successful, I think we will see and a slow expansion of Medicare until it becomes the primary insurance for everyone, relegating private insurance to a role of secondary coverage.All goods and services including healthcare are rationed. In the pass we rationed healthcare like other service, no money, no service. Today rationing is shared activity between you, your insurance company, and your doctor. In the future, healthcare will be rationed based on need. It's unavoidable. In fact, that's what we do in hospitals and emergency rooms now.
Medicare processing overhead is about 3 to 5%, much less than private insurance and there is no 10 to 20% insurance company profits to increase healthcare cost. For doctors and hospitals having single payer simplifies billing and is a significant cost reduction. According to 2012 Gallup poll, people are much more satisfied with Medicare than private insurance.
The real basis for the increased government involvement in healthcare, is the growing acceptance that everyone should have the right to healthcare without regard to their financial circumstances. This trend is not going to reverse because people are demanding more and better healthcare.
I don't think that your concept of rationing is the same most people use. If I have the cash enough to go buy any insurance I want, then it is not rationed in any sense of the word.
Also, why not a two tier system of private and government controlled health care? Why only single payer?
Wealthy people can always buy whatever health care they want. If not here, someplace else. They are simply not any part of the problem.
The problem is keeping the mainstay of our economy, the middle class, creators of everyone's wealth, in an optimum state of health. The only way that we can compete around the world.
The question is can we do that without single payer, through private for profit health insurance companies, and for profit but not really competing health care providers?
I agree there are many services government offers which are very inefficient. However, I believe Medicare is one of the most efficient. Their claims processing overhead is realities low, they have no marketing cost, no profit margins, and since they have a stable client base unlike most insurance companies they have very low client service costs.I have seen a number of things that need to be changed in the ACA.
1. If dependents are not covered by an employer, the dependents are not eligible to use the exchanges and receive the subsidy.
2. If you have to buy individual insurance, the exchanges are great if you are within the limits of the subsidy. However, if your income exceeds the subsidy by just a dollar you can see a large just in your cost. This subsidy needs to be taper.
3. The websites for the exchanges I have seen need big improvements. The context sensitive help is almost worthless. Some of the information being collected is redundant. You have to provide family income but there is no information as what constitutes family income.
4. There is no reason to have so many different website designs. They all collect the same basic information with only small variations by state.
5. The individual mandate penalty as well as the employer mandate penalty is too low.
6. The law needs to change so all states will be required expand Medicaid. Because the Supreme Court have allowed states to make that decision nearly a million people will fall in a coverage gap.
7. Lastly, the best change that could be made is to replace the ACA with single payer. It would be much simpler, provide universal coverage, and cheaper in long run.
I always respect your posts, but I have to say, you are absolutely insane if you really believe ANYTHING run by the government, and that is exactly what single-payer means, is "cheaper in the long run".
Immie
