"A GAO study, already in the 1990's, found that the U.S. could save enough simply on administrative costs with a single-payer national health program to cover all uninsured Americans." Well, that plus Barney's fighter program, I suppose.
How old are you, bladerunner? I ask not idly, but wondering if you were around on the momentous day when Amtrak was launched. I was. Sensible folks had a pretty good laugh that day, although the laughing stopped long ago. Do you realize that it is incorporated as a for-profit corporation? Government studies "showed" (undoubtedly, some politicians used the word "proved") it would make money, and very shortly after inception, at that. That was in 1971, thirty-eight years ago. Last year, it only lost a little over a billion dollars ($1,049,947,000), but it does manage to fulfill its political purpose: sucking up tax money and distributing the benefits to a small selection of favored classes of people. I'm not sure how "innovative" Amtrak is. The once-proud California Zephyr, with its stainless steel observation cars, many with vista-domes, was literally falling apart before anything was done about it. (The real innovation, I guess, is that it no longer exists.)
I ask you again why you expect belief for "statistics" and "data" and "analysis" that arise out of obvious political motives, or ignore simple facts (such as that administrative expenses can be cut drastically when the interfering regulator becomes the autocratic provider)? Are you headed to Canada for any of that great, low-overhead medical care in the near future?
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
