To: neolib who wrote (214786 ) 1/25/2007 4:46:25 PM From: jttmab Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500 It makes no sense when you consider the other 49 states. Its negative [zero?] sum game from that angle. It depends on which state your state your from and where the medicare/medicaid dollars per capita are flowing. In general, I don't like the notion of dollars flowing from the state for federal taxes and then flowing back to the state in Federal payments to the state. It seems inefficient to me. But in the case of health expenditures I don't mind much, it's just the silly word "opportunity" that bugs me.Actually, I've been waiting to bring that one up. Turns out that the medical community has excellent competition and good service in the areas where insurance is not paying. Tit jobs being an excellent example. Drive the freeways of L.A. and look at the billboards for 1) Cosmetic surgery, and 2) Laser eye surgery. Or listen to the radio adds. The competition is brutal, prices are excellent, and the service is fast. All because these are areas that the consumer is acting as a consumer in, and paying from their own pocket. How freaking amazing. However, that's a different class of health care. It's not truly health care at all, it's cosmetic. It's a very expensive version of a padded bra. If you have pneumonia how much time are you going to spend finding the best value? Suppose you have plugged up arteries and you need an angioplasty. Do you run around to each doctor in the area and scope out the charges, then go to each hospital and scope out their charges, then you go to the anesthesiologist and figure out his charge.....create some little cost/benefit/value table to make a decision? I think not. Would you be attracted by an ad that said "One hour angioplasties", no appointments necessary? jttmab