# I pit Senator Bunning for killing seniors **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 27, 2010, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-senator-bunning-for-killing-seniors/530594 "2010-02-27T01:34:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 120
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-senator-bunning-for-killing-seniors/530594/120 "2010-03-03T02:50:35Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > So… inefficiency due to high administration costs are A-OK with you, as long as it’s the “free market” being inefficient. As long as people have a choice of which inefficient private company to use, it’s just peachy. I already directly answered this exact question from you upthread. The answer is yes, absolutely, affirmative, YES. If consumers choose a particular service provider (e.g., a hair stylist, doctor, health insurer, etc.) then that’s the one they think is the best. It doesn’t matter what that service provider’s overhead is, and it doesn’t matter what the aggregate overhead of all such service providers is. > [@](#): > > The fact that under a UHC system, these administrative inefficiencies are greatly reduced just passes right by you eh? It doesn’t pass me by–I reject it as a benefit of UHC. > [@](#): > > eta: sorry for not replying sooner **RR** old buddy. I have an actual job and life. Meaning that it took you this long to think of a reply, which ended up being to repeat a point you attempted to make earlier. Nice job. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-senator-bunning-for-killing-seniors/530594)._