Yeah, and it's pretty complicated so it would take a lot of analysis. Did you work that up yourself, or is it from somewhere else? It looks like a lot of thought went into it.

We already have an extensive network of private and government methods of getting medical care to people who can't afford it. I've posted examples before. Here's the Sutter program as another randomly-chosen example.

I cannot emphasize enough that, for those currently pushing "reform," this issue has never been about getting medical care to those who can't afford insurance.

If you go over the main number of 47 million uninsured, and factor out things like citizen status, high-income uninsured, people eligible for existing programs that haven't applied, and other issues, you end up with (depending on the count) 12 to 15 million who actually want health insurance and can't afford it.

Here in California, Anthem Blue Cross quotes me good individual coverage for about $200 a month. I plugged in "female" and a younger age to pull in maternity benefits, too. As a reference, an actual family plan for me and my two kids would cost about $1000 a month.

I don't know how many of the 15 million are adults, married, in families, or anything else, so I can't do exact numbers, but if you simply bought all of them an individual policy for, say, $300 a month, that would run about $54 billion a year. Problem solved, and compare that to what they're talking about spending.

This isn't about helping people get medical care. It's about taking over the system.