If a PERSON, once born, was charged $100.00 per month his/her annual premium would be $1,200.00. Over a 60 year life span his health account would have paid into his private health account $72,000.00

If the population was divided into three large competing groups MONTHLY PREMIUMS COLLECTED from each THIRD GROUP would be $10,666,666,700.00 Billion dollars per month!

Using any one of the THREE GROUPS total ANNUAL PREMIUMS would be $128,000,000,400.00 Billion Dollars.

This same ONE THIRD GROUP over 60 years would net $7,680,000,024,000.00 [$7.5 Trillion]

Now, if ALL THREE GROUPS were functioning together the premiums would be:

• Monthly $32,000,000,000.00 [$32 Billion]
• Annually $384,000,000,000.00 [$384 Billion]
• 60 Years $23,040,000,000,000.00 [$23 Trillion]

One Person:

This is based on 1 Person paying from birth $100.00 per month from birth until 60 years of age.

Should Not Be Taxed:

This private health care plan should not be taxed in any event.

Should Not Include Abortions:

This private health care plan should not pay for abortions since other people with differing views contribute to these large groups. Abortions should be born by the two people involved, or additional insurance!

All Americans Must Participate:

By every American taking part in this PRIVATE GROUP insurance, regardless of the UNDERWRITER involved, over $23 Trillion Dollars would be accumulated over a period of 60 years.

Rolling Over Remaining Proceeds To Family Members:

Should a person not use his/her complete $72,000.00 60 year premium that remaining premium should be distributed equally to surviving family members accounts equally.

Key To Success:

With each generation, as long as government and corruption does not enter, premiums should become less per month while remaining at $100.00 per month per person.

Taxing Authorities:

No one, not even TAXING AUTHORITIES should have access to your accounts. Any unused sum balance, transferred over generations, should create lost wealth and help people live more productive and worry free lives.

Employers Not Involved In Redistribution Of Wealth:

Employers should collect only those legal taxes and nothing else.

Seasoldier/Unless we get ourselves together on this you will pay, your children will pay, your grandchildren will have nothing. Stop congress from spending our wealth!

Since things are heading another direction, I won't spend time discussing your whole post, but I did want to address one argument:

Should Not Include Abortions:
This private health care plan should not pay for abortions since other people with differing views contribute to these large groups. Abortions should be born by the two people involved, or additional insurance!

The mere fact that people with differing views contribute to something is not generally seen as justification for saying that it can't include a certain service. For example, Jehova's Witnesses disapprove of blood transfusions. Should blood transfusions not be covered? Christian Scientists disapprove of most drugs. Should medicine not be covered? The Amish disapprove of high technology. Should high technoology medical procedures like MRIs not be covered? Catholics disapprove of birth control. Should birth control pills and vascectomies not be covered? Environmentalists disapprove of large families. Should only the first pregnancy be covered? Scientologists disapprove of psychology and psychiatry. Should those mental health services not be covered? Quakers disapprove of the use of violence. Should treatment of injuries sustained violently (a concussion for a boxer, a bullet wound for a soldier) not be covered? Seventh Day Adventists disapprove of eating any meat and Vegans object to using animal products. Should treatments deriving from meat and other animal products not be covered? Members of PETA disapprove of anything that harms animals. Should treatments that involve harming animals not be covered? I've even heard raving lunatics who think AIDS is God's whole plan for punishing gay people and fornicators. Should HIV prevention and AIDS treatment not be covered?

If health insurance only covered things on which there were no "differing views," then it would cover nothing whatsoever. Unfortunately, there are people in this country who think that it's perfectly OK if the government ignores the religious convictions of everyone others, but that it has to pay attention to their own religious convictions. So, it's fine for government health insurance to cover blood transfusions, because they're not Jehova's Witnesses, but that it would be wrong for government health insurance to cover abortion, because their own religion is against it. But I've met people who think blood transfusions are an insult to God, and who are convinced the Bible clearly forbids them. Why is it OK to ignore them if we must bow and scrape before those who've decided that the Bible says abortion is wrong?

All of your arguments you outlined Arkady made good sense. However, which one of these is mandated by law? If abortion is mandated we are doomed to a fucking Row verses Wade scenario for its entirety.

""For example, Jehova's Witnesses disapprove of blood transfusions. Should blood transfusions not be covered?""

These people, like many others, do not threaten the program by refusing a blood transfusion, do they? How can refusal of a service on a personal basis costs others money?

""Christian Scientists disapprove of most drugs. Should medicine not be covered?""

Do Christian Scientists not taking whatever drug threaten the program? On the contrary, a person refusing drugs means the kitty will grow faster!

""The Amish disapprove of high technology. Should high technoology medical procedures like MRIs not be covered?""

Do these people threaten a health system? Can't they choose with their doctor procedures they want and feel is necessary? Again, if these people choose not to participate it means more money in the system, doesn't it?

""Catholics disapprove of birth control. Should birth control pills and vascectomies not be covered?""

Again, look at what I propose. In the Catholic cases their actions would increase plan funds with each birth, would they not? Who will complain about that?

""Environmentalists disapprove of large families. Should only the first pregnancy be covered?""

Regardless of how many children you have, one or a hundred, you will pay $100.00 per month to secure whatever health care you demand less abortion. In other words, he who continues to have children will have to pay for their health care regardless of the quantity.

""Scientologists disapprove of psychology and psychiatry. Should those mental health services not be covered?""

Again if they disapprove they should not be forced to participate. This too, would add to the kitty.

""Quakers disapprove of the use of violence. Should treatment of injuries sustained violently (a concussion for a boxer, a bullet wound for a soldier) not be covered?""

Military should be covered in the FEDERAL TAXES--this is above normal coverage and if the country really appreciated their work pay should reflect it. One, during the military, the monthly premiums could be deducted from GI salaries. Remember, at age 60 premiums could be cut in half, or stopped entirely, and upon death, rolled over to family member accounts thereby acting as a non-taxable medical gift transfer from one generation to another.

Boxers are not covered--this is not normal health care--neither is football, basketball, baseball, or any other sports. This should be considered a PROFESSIONAL RIDER to the base policy not discussed here for simplicity sake.

""Seventh Day Adventists disapprove of eating any meat and Vegans object to using animal products. Should treatments deriving from meat and other animal products not be covered?""

Abortions is not the same as ethnic, religious, or other customs however quaint. As far as that goes I will except your reply and raise you this response:

In the example, for simplicity sake, I broke it down to 1 Person, 1/3 of the population, and the entire living population sick, dying but not dead, excluding all illegal migrants which could fall easily under the same suggested structure if counted.

The resolve of each person is to maintain his/her own private health policy none being different from the rest except by RIDERS. If your examples refused such treatment then this would ADD to the kitty not SUBTRACT. If, in the case of the military or professional sports example is focused on then one would naturally want to purchase a RIDER or separate policy to cover possible injuries. Still, the individual would be the owner of said policies regardless under accounts A1 and A2. As for the rest who have different fetishes their premiums would all remain the same including those with prior disabilities.

""Members of PETA disapprove of anything that harms animals. Should treatments that involve harming animals not be covered?""

What does harming animals have to do with human health care?

""I've even heard raving lunatics who think AIDS is God's whole plan for punishing gay people and fornicators. Should HIV prevention and AIDS treatment not be covered?""

If it is a sickness, which it is, then yes it should be covered. All viruses can be killed by diet, did you know that? Yes sir, even HIV and the worse herpes viruses.

Seasoldier/Now, look at the figures and think for a moment how this would work. You would have ultimate control over your policy. The policy would accumulate interest regardless of what group you were in. The three or four groups, or however many, would all charge the same. Transferring from one group to another is simple, just call and ask to be transferred if you become uncomfortable in one group and take on new doctors. Maybe even one group is PRO ABORTION, or take all your examples above and make them INDIVIDUAL GROUPS. However, in doing so this may cause your premiums to be higher, why? Because the less people in a group the higher the premium normally.

Now tell me, is the 60 Year sum, indicating a $100.00 per month adequate for 60 years of health care? If not fix the monthly premium to what you think it should be but keep it simple.