View Post
Normchacho said:
DonFerrari said:

Being cheaper to a part while a lot more expensive to other isn't exactly being cheaper for majority of population.

It's as simples as you paying yourself it would cost 100, with governement involvement it costs 140 but it may be other person paying it without using. Not a real benefit.

I have friends that got their "mandatory" health care go from 1k to 4k in a matter of few years on Obamacare while not even using, wanting or needing the health care.

Nope. There is a difference between Price, Value and Cost.

What I said is that no one should demand they to reveal their COSTS. But sure no issue with they making their prices public on direct threatment (agreements with healthcare plans and similars is discretionary between the companies).

The US is third in the world in per-capita health care costs behind just Switzerland and Norway. The US pays way more than most developed nations for worse care and has for a very long time. To claim that mirroring healthcare systems that provide better care for less money would increase costs is just silly.

There is improvements to be made on the system, I'm not questioning that. The questioning is applicable universally. There is added cost on putting the government to manage anything and usually they will return a subpar result (also managing a system for 20M citizen is different than to 300M).

You do know the profit margin of the corporations doing the service? Their cost structure? How much is wage, investiments, etc? No. If you don't know where or what really is the problem won't help you solve it.

Government is inheritently bad at managing anything because of the overwhelming size of it.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"


Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"