A hot topic of discussions publicly and privately orbits around the proposed overhaul of our national Health Care Cost system.
 Proponents of such a plan stress the expense of medial treatment today for most citizens and their inability to pay this expense.
 Other voices propose we are not targeting the real cause of high cost aiming instead to create a government social program allowing government to compete unfairly with private enterprise.
  Let us Ying & Yang this topic a bit.
   No one disputes the high cost of health care.
 None disputes that the quality of care in the United States is the best in the world.
  We are starting to define the problem.
 Then, what should be the solution?   The Problem: High Health Care Cost.
   Solution: Lower Cost.
   Method: Tell Providers to lower the cost.
 This is a simple, direct solution but not practical.
    Approach: Create a government agency with subsidies that only pays fixed amounts for treatments then force the  providers to charge only that amount.
 This will lower the cost of insurance for those enrolled in the government plan.
    Two possible ripple effects would be the transfer of the overage (actual cost of treatment) cost from GHC (Government Health Care) to the private sector patients with effect of further driving up the cost of these premiums.
 The side effect would be minimizing the ability of the private insurers to compete with GHC.
  Another result might be the Provider opts to provide medical care within the range of the expense allowed for GHC patients.
 Limiting medical treatment to the expense level where expense and allowed payments meet in a cost/profit ratio.
 Even non-profit medical treatment facilities attempt to break even, not get in a hole.
  Some treatment facilities might limit their clients to patients other that GHC policyholders since they cannot provide the higher level of treatment or care at the approved rates of the GHC program.
 Examples exist of facilities in other countries where people who can afford the treatment move away from the government support program toward a private treatment facility attempting to find an improved level of care.
   Alternatives: The high cost of Health Care is driven by multiple causes, one these cost related to the high-level technical medical treatments, another is the cost of providing Care without charge for those who cannot afford to pay for the treatment.
Some proponents of the GHC program site the cost of the program, though large, are actually not a cost increase to medical care.
 The reasoning sites cost of emergency room treatments today for the uninsured is a significant burden on hospitals and medical support in general.
 They feel by eliminating the current cost related to emergency room treatment this amount would offset the total cost of GHC program, thus largely minimizing any actual increase of GHC.
   An opponent of the GHC approach sites the following.
 If the emergency room expense for free emergency room treatment for non payers were actually the driving force behind Health cost it seems the most direct approach would be to eliminate this expense totally by the government reimbursing hospitals for emergency room treatment for non paying patients.
  Simply, directly without involvement of a massive insurance program at the federal level.
     Removing emergency room treatment expense for non-paying patients from a hospital's expense ratio would reduce medical cost for all other purposes.
 This in turn will lower the cost of medical treatment for all patients.
 A lower cost of treatment will directly affect the cost of insurance reflected in lower premiums.
  These costs reductions while reducing insurance premiums will provide coverage paying patient benefits without carrying the burden of the cost of emergency room medical treatment for non-paying patients.
 Additionally this would address the concern of a National program creating unfair governmental competition of the Federal government to private enterprise.