> No one is making the claim that the cost of service would be $0. Quite obviously.

I am making the claim that the cost will be prohibitive to handle via charity, especially as a national healthcare strategy, as proposed upthread.

▲

foco_tubi 21 hours ago | parent [-]

Do you not agree that charity/philanthropy is already an essential part of the US healthcare strategy?

▲

ceejayoz 19 hours ago | parent [-]

US healthcare costs are $16k/person/year.

I do not think charity makes up a particularly signficant portion of that cost, no.

▲

foco_tubi 18 hours ago | parent [-]

That's not the question I asked, but you're still heading down the road to being incorrect. The fact is that charitable giving, need-based aid, philanthropic donations, government assistance, and other forms of subsidy fund *roughly half of the sum total American healthcare costs.* That's trillions of dollars.

▲

ceejayoz 18 hours ago | parent [-]

> government assistance

That's not charity!

▲

foco_tubi 17 hours ago | parent [-]

Maybe not according to your personal definition. Government welfare is a form of institutionalized or compulsory collective charity, although it is not “charity” in the private voluntary sense.

▲

ceejayoz 16 hours ago | parent [-]

> Maybe not according to your personal definition.

Not according to any common definition.

I, too, can win every argument if I get to make up the definitions.

> compulsory collective charity

Compulsory makes it not charity. That's a tax.

	▲	foco_tubi 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Regardless of whether or not you agree with any specific definition, the state of US healthcare is such that half of all spending needs to be subsidized in one form or another. To remove even the paltry billions that may fit under a strict category of “voluntary charitable giving” would be a disaster.