>>>>>>>>>>All those liberals want is to have health care for everyone.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Everyone has health care. You pay for yours, I pay for mine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It is a bit different that that. You both pay for insurance, which pays for both.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Not exactly. For most of my life, my family only had a catestrophic emergency plan (really high deductable, very low cost). Day-to-day costs were paid out of pocket.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Universal systems don't have high deductibles. At most a neglible user fee for some services. That would be money in your pocket. More personal freedom to spend your money.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're leaving out the taxes.
>>>>
>>>>Could you elborate on that?
>>>
>>>Government supplied money to fund the program comes from taxes. One must include those costs in addition to any "neglible(sic) user fee".
>>>
>>>Depending on the form of those taxes (flat percentage, increasing percentage based on income, sales tax, what have you) the cost burden is different depending on who is paying for it.
>>
>>But you ignored my entire plan. The insurance is taken over by the government and run at cost instead of for profit. What used to be profit, is used to pay for the poor's coverage. The cost to you is the same. Same cost, better results.
>
>That's not how it would work in the US. History has show that the money the federal government takes in would not be allocated specifically to health insurance. This of social security. We'd end up with another income stream for Congress to squander.
>
>Then there's the issue of waste. For profit companies must answer for their spending, whereas the federal government simply spends at will.

California does its share of spending money it does not have. Just float one or more bond issues.