I see. I'm don't really know much about the US case, but that article reads as a somewhat disingenuous response to a very disingenuous statement by and electio

I see. I'm don't really know much about the US case, but that article reads as a somewhat disingenuous response to a very disingenuous statement by and electioneering politician. They define "Benefits & Services" as opposed to "administrative costs" and report the first makes u 90% or more. I assume that "Benefits & Services" includes various services that might be termed "administrative costs" in everyday talk. But point taken, maybe this is not such a huge savings.