Absolutely correct. These are benefits of employment. In each case, they are not taxed on the value received. In the case of government workers, the cost is borne by the taxpayer. In the case of Goldman, these sunk costs are used to offset income. But the fact remains that half of this country has access to the single payer government system while the rest don't. That's my only point. I argue neither for or against the ACA. I argue that socialized medicine is already here, already servicing half of the populace. And these numbers will only increase...along with the skyrocketing costs to pay for it. And that for me is where the discussion needs to focus.

Yes BMAC you are correct. Medicare is socialized medicine. The average contribution for today's medicare enrollee is approximately 67,000. Today's average withdrawal (payment) for services is about 161,000 over the life of the enrollee. You paid a buck. The government tosses around 2 bucks on your behalf. That's the definition of socialized medicine. If this approach was used by a private sector insurance company they would be bankrupt in no time flat.

Or you can look at it another way. Let's say the government said you're on your own. Here's the 67 grand you gave us. Assuming you could even get private market coverage, you'd have about 5 years of monthly premiums paid. After that...tough.