The Healthy American Act intends to move from the traditional insurance contribution scheme that has both employers and employees contribute to the latter’s health insurance. The current scheme has employees’ salaries being deducted from insurance premiums. In addition, employers deduct their share of contribution from employees’ wages before presenting checks or payslips. This new bill does away with government agencies that currently handle employee insurance contributions. Inefficiencies that characterize the current system are expected to go away. Fact that the bill is taunted to be the most agreeable between the country’s political divide increases the chances of its adoption. According to Bill sponsors, Americans would be contributing to private personal insurance schemes like the way it happens with auto insurance. This means that it would be individuals’ responsibility to choose companies handling their health insurance contributions. In addition, it would be possible for Americans to change switch between providers as they wish. The greatest advantage of the proposed scheme over the current arrangement is that of personal responsibility, which means that failure to contribute would result in a lack of health coverage. The current system has the burden of contribution falling solely on employers. However, it is the former that faces the biggest burden; reason: employers are the ones that submit employee contributions to the relevant government agency or insurance company. Impact in Terms of Cost Fact that the Healthy American Act will eradicate federal and state bureaucracies that deal with healthcare contribution would be the biggest cost saver (Wyden 2008). This is because of the heavy administration costs that characterize operations in their day-to-day operations. These agencies have actually been overwhelmed by the number of accounts they have to handle, which has resulted in greater compromise on quality. Indeed, it is common to hear Americans complaining of these agencies’ slow pace when dealing with client queries. It is further estimated that moving to private schemes would save the country an estimated US$ 4.8billion during the inaugural year and about US$ 1.48 trillion within the next ten years of use (Klein 2008). The act is also taunted to have the capacity of influencing Americans to develop the use of preventative disease control measures because they are the ones to face health costs (Trinward 2006). This is contrary to the current scheme that produces moral hazards on Americans. Reason: people do not feel the pain of contributing to the scheme because, as mentioned earlier, employers deduct health insurance premiums before handing over paychecks or payslips. Having individual Americans contribute from their salaries will therefore inflict responsibility tendencies in them, just like the way car owners take care of their automobiles. Failure to take such measures would result in unfriendly actions from insurance companies. Impact in Terms of Cost Quality Feeling the pain of contributing to the scheme will lead to Americans demanding services worth premiums paid (Klein 2008), failure to which hospitals could be blacklisted by the affected insurance companies and patients. Healthcare facilities would thus