Morris Dovey wrote:

Need I point out that that solution STILL leaves you paying for Joe -
just via a different path :-).

There's a difference worth noting: you wouldn't only be paying for
Joe's stitches, but also for all the clerical overhead needed for the
government to process the medical and accounting information.

Guess who pays /those/ bills....

Who pays for the 20% administrative overhead the insurance companies absorb
today? Health insurance administration in Canada absorbs 6%, it's 4% in
France and an astonishingly efficient 1.5% in Taiwan. What baffles me is
why so many folks are apparently content paying an extra 20% for insurance
that goes to executive salaries and marketing campaigns and so on while
being horrified at the thought of the supposedly greater inefficiency govt.
would bring to the process. The insurance companies have been getting away
with murder--refusing customers with pre-existing conditions, finding
excuses to drop customers who paid their premiums for years but now need
treatment, raising their rates far ahead of inflation, not to mention
absorbing a fifth of the money they take in for "administration." We're
being screwed six ways from Sunday *now* by the industry--are we just
supposed to bend over and smile forever, paying more than any other nation
on earth for health care while coming in 13th among wealthy nations in life
expectancy and infant mortality? My usual instinct is to suspect that govt.
can usually makes things worse, but when it comes to health care we need to
do something different, it can't go on like it is now because we simply
can't afford it.