[ceejayoz]

I can assure you it wouldn't be $0, or anywhere near close to that.

My kiddos were born the day before the third trimester and spent two months in the hospital. Staff it at minimum wage, cap the costs at just the stuff used, and you're still talking a lot of money.

[foco_tubi]

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

What you can't be sure of is the real cost in terms of resources, and how that would be accounted and paid for. The price of your childrens' stay, to you personally, could be far less than what you originally paid personally if healthcare was not reliant on private subsidy. You would also likely be subsidizing the costs of other children staying in the hospital through public subsidy using your tax dollars. I reckon that last point is where a lot of people in the US get hung up.

[ceejayoz]

> 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]

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

[ceejayoz]

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

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

[foco_tubi]

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]

> government assistance

That's not charity!