i think i'm finally beginning to get a sense of what we are all arguing about. it's about how to best slice the pie, right? at this point the kind of pie doesn't matter, if it's blueberry, blackberry, strawberry, etc.etc.
so, there's total consumer demand for health services. we're trying to divide it into two parts, right? that is a market based approach for a piece of the puzzle, and a gov't organized, or supported approach for the other piece of the puzzle.
how best to allow both profits and social regulation to co-exist for the most good for the whole. the whole is us.
so, what parts can be incentivised with profits, and which part will run on gov't mandated programs like medicare. and the medicare advantage suppliers are pretty much contracting to administer medicare to all clients who buys a MA account. medicare system pays them to administer the whole thingy. hopefully they're making a suitable profit in the endeavor. wish there were more choices, not just one or two.
if we assume the poor will get healthcare, mandated or by charity, etc. the pymnts have to be made. maybe no profit, or not much. that leaves the gov't to step in with medicaid like pymnts that the working class will help pay the costs. we know that someone always pays, no matter what.
but, all we're doing is trying to find a way to divide the pie in the way that does the most good for the most consumers, voters, citizens. tax-payers be damned.
and then there's the pesky little issue of natural longevity, and the subjective discussion of the "quality of life" issue. somebody needs to offer a knife sharpening service to be able to cut the pie in surgically precise manner. who knows, with the right sharpener they and/or their competitors might all become rich.
