> The one where Medicare's overhead costs are in the single-digit percentages (like 3%), while private insurers have overhead rates well into the double digits.

> The one where Medicare's overhead costs are in the single-digit percentages (like 3%), while private insurers have overhead rates well into the double digits. They're not defining overhead the same way. Note also that medicare doesn't count its fraud costs while private insurers do. > Insurance companies, not because they're evil (although they are), have to cherry-pick and screen if they want to stay alive. Actually, they don't. They merely have to keep payouts plus expenses lower than revenues plus investment gains. > Government, which is not driven by the profit motive, doesn't have to cherry pick and can insure all citizens (at a cost). Govt is definitely driven by a profit motive. Govt doesn't have infinite resources, so there will be limits. You won't like the ones applied to you, and you won't have the money to do anything about it because it will be taken from you and spent on someone else. Oh, and certain folks will have very different limits. That's how govt works. > Also, government-run health care and the elimination of the fee-for-service model will reduce the amount of unnecessary testing and make health care cheaper in the long run. There's nothing stopping a private organization from doing something other than fee for service today. In fact, Kaiser doesn't, and I'll bet that they're not the only one. "Unnecessary testing" is in the eye of the beholder. When are mamograms unnecessary? Of course, there are defensive tests, for liability reasons. If you're arguing that govt healthcare shouldn't be liable for mistakes....