To: Travis_Bickle who wrote (131311 ) 2/23/2010 4:52:47 PM From: Lane3 Respond to of 541778 The key to me is that I get a vested benefit NOW, while the cost of the benefit is CONTINGENT, i.e., if I am flush I will pay a considerable amount for the benefit (but who cares given that I am flush), while if I am in dire straights due to illness or whatever I may pay little or nothing for it ... seems like a good bet. I understand your approach. But I want to point out that it's taken from the perspective of what's in it for you. That's how just about everyone looks at it.I agree that the sustainability is in question, but our current system has proven unsustainable, and the U.S. government has made good on its obligations for far longer than BCBS or any other corporation in history. I can buy my own health care or go outside the country for care or die quietly having lived a full life if things really get bad plus I have no posterity to worry about so I can easily discount my own self interest. I am entirely focused on sustainability going forward. My personal stake is a negligible factor. I agree that the current system is unsustainable. What is at issue, though, is whether the proposed system is more sustainable than the current one or more sustainable than some alternative not yet proposed. I have serious doubts about both. I take your point about the government's track record in making good on its obligations but we haven't seen anything like where we are now or where we could be if we dump an unsustainable health care system atop it. There is a breaking point out there somewhere, don't know where, but somewhere. Human nature and demographics favor us running into it sooner or later.