Obama knew millions could not keep their health insurance

[bonehead]

BH,

I believe Z was talking in terms of finance. That the system, not the individual, gives no incentives to live healthier life.
I wouldn't be surprised many people to take that as a 'do what you please, we'll cover you'. After all, it seems everywhere people like the idea the state to be their nanny and not to be personally responsible for anything.

No. Under most plans you have to pony up a copay and deductibles every time you get healthcare. That alone is a systemic incentive financially to be responsible for your own health. If you want to blow 5-7k of your hard earned money out the window every year because you refuse to be a bit healthier that is your choice and not a nanny thing at all. If anything the ACA makes you more responsible because you now have to pay something into the system. No more going in uninsured and getting a free ride with little or no personal responsibility. That is the nanny state way the ACA is moving away from.

[JAD_333]

JAD,

I can see where are you coming from for elders vs youngsters pay.

Reading you and Z I am under an impression your old system bankrupted. Otherwise, there would be no reason for the today youngsters to fill the gap.

You have mentioned $2.64tn health care costs being covered by the people. Does that mean all the taxes collected from cigs, booze, lottery etc that were going into health care (I assume you have/had those), are now going to stop being taxed? Does it also mean Federal budget will have no health care in it? Because people will pay to the insurers, they will pay the doctors, circle closed? 26% of federal budget saved. Yay. Is it?

Trying to understand it, for a foreigner it is really complicated.

Dok:

It's complicated for everyone...:)

As you know, the government would pay for single-payer from tax revenues. No question taxes would have to be raised to pay for such a huge addition to the Federal budget. But, yes, it could come from many sources, tobacco, etc, as money is fungible (a dollar is a dollar is a dollar). But most likely, to hit the needed numbers, income taxes would have to be increased. The good news is the increase won't affect everyone the same. People already paying for private insurance, would no longer pay premiums on private insurance. Instead, they would pay that money to the gov't in the form of higher taxes. The people without insurance would feel the pinch of higher taxes more. It sounds simple, but it's really complicated, because the tax increase would probably hit the wealthy disproportionately while lower income people might pay no extra taxes and so on. The mathematicians could figure it all out easily, but politics is anathema to reason... and don't forget the biggest problem is most Americans are cool to single-payer because of their negative impression of the Canadian and British national healthcare system. Things would have to get much worse here than they are now to convince them otherwise.

[JAD_333]

It is paid directly to the old and already sick in the form of premium supports via premium equalization. That $20 is way more than they use. Todays young face a net lifetime loss of over $300,000. They will never get back what they pay in because our already old and sick keep demanding more. To the point of getting $250,000 per capita more out of the system than they paid in. It is a massive inter-generational theft of wealth.

Again, you are viewing young people as a static demographic and as never in need of medical care. You are also discounting the help that young people contribute out-of-pocket to the care and medical expenses of their elderly parents--many thousands in the case of me and my siblings. A lifetime loss of $300,000--your number--can be made up through inheritances in many cases. One can only consider this problem rationally by imaging the wheel of life always turning. You are young and give $20 a day to the care of your aging parents. Then you become old and your children do the same for you. It's an old fashioned custom that faded with the nanny state. It's called familial responsibility, except in this case it's forced on you by the state.

We need to stop spending millions of dollars to extend the lives of the elderly by 6 months... sorry, hate to sound cruel but its stupid. If I have an estate worth anything I'd want the plug pulled so my kids and grandkids have something. It also means i should not be able to rob your kids and grand kids to buy me another six months. Terminal cases outside of a few exceptions like the very young, war heroes etc need palliative care.

The elderly lady I mentioned did just that, but it was her decision. It would have been an immediate relative's decision if she had been in a coma or the hospital's decision if she had left a living will to that effect. I am not ready to play God and take a conscious person's life without their consent. Too many ways that could be abused.

Wrong, young people are taxed disproportionately to what they use via premium equalization. Nothing fair or balanced about it.

You missed my point, but never mind.

Look, we know roughly speaking what each age bracket is going to use on health care... we can tax in increasing increments as people both age and earn more in order to protect the wealth building capabilities that are so vital to our economic progress.

Considering your premise is flawed to begin with, it's hardly worth refuting this. You are not speaking of risk pool insurance anymore, but of a bracket system in which taxes increase with age, irregardless of health. It puts us right back at square one. Private insurance have done that for years and it's the reason why so many middle-aged and early seniors can't afford private insurance, not to mention being frozen out because of prior heath conditions. Oh, and as for 'protecting wealth building capabilities' vital to our economy, adding people to the insurance rolls is a kick up for GDP. But, aside from that, the idea that the health of the economy trumps the health of the people who labored to build it strikes me as coldly ungrateful, if not immoral. What are we becoming? Fodder for the economy...

It would be roughly 7% less minus the insurance company profits. More would be saved by running people under a single administrative system. Reforming end of life care would save huge amounts, even if much of the savings was siphoned off to preserve research on cures. We would also save hundreds of millions on uncompensated care in ER's. There are a lot of costs in our system that are massively inflated.

Agree.

Obamacare's mandate is immoral becuase it put everyone in to the same pot and then deliberately shifted the costs to the least able to pay.

You're changing directions. First it was people who could pay but would lose lifetime earnings. Now it's people who can 'least afford' to pay. The latter won't pay much if anything. How do we judge morality in the latter case?

Single payer makes more ethical and constitutional sense than Obamacare.

Agree on the constitutional sense.

[JAD_333]

Seems more mature Ladies are actually paying for younger ones potential to have children.

Give it some more thought. Everyone buys a policy that covers everything. You're a man and don't need maternity coverage. You're a woman and don't need prostate coverage. It works out in the long run.

[zraver]

Again, you are viewing young people as a static demographic and as never in need of medical care.

No, they are a group, membership changes over time, but the group as a whole uses far less health care than other groups and is taxed far more than other groups. That is immoral.

You are also discounting the help that young people contribute out-of-pocket to the care and medical expenses of their elderly parents--many thousands in the case of me and my siblings. A lifetime loss of $300,000--your number--can be made up through inheritances in many cases.

The young will now have less to spend on familial care because they are being unfairly taxed. A tax that will crush their ability to build wealth and leave anything for their own kids.

One can only consider this problem rationally by imaging the wheel of life always turning. You are young and give $20 a day to the care of your aging parents. Then you become old and your children do the same for you. It's an old fashioned custom that faded with the nanny state. It's called familial responsibility, except in this case it's forced on you by the state.

Except that $20 a day is about $15 a day more than they were promised. The elderly, unhealthy and already sick do not have a right to my sons future earnings.

The elderly lady I mentioned did just that, but it was her decision. It would have been an immediate relative's decision if she had been in a coma or the hospital's decision if she had left a living will to that effect. I am not ready to play God and take a conscious person's life without their consent. Too many ways that could be abused.

I don't want to take anyone's life, I just don't want my son paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for treatments that at best only bring 6 months of extended low quality life. Palliative care yes, super human efforts for 6 months of mostly hospital bound existence- no. I say this as my own father lies in hospice dying of lung cancer. My grandmother on my mothers side died of the same disease. I will probably die of it after smoking for 30 years... I do not deserve to rip off children as a reward for my bad health choices.

You missed my point, but never mind.

You keep missing mine. Obamacare is theft from the young by the old and already sick to deliver entitlements that were never promised and never paid for.

Considering your premise is flawed to begin with, it's hardly worth refuting this. You are not speaking of risk pool insurance anymore, but of a bracket system in which taxes increase with age, irregardless of health.

What risk pool? Obamacare dispenses with risk pools and puts everyone into the same pot and then shifts the bulk of the costs off the sick and onto the healthy. That is the whole premise of ACA. Age brackets are risk pools

It puts us right back at square one. Private insurance have done that for years and it's the reason why so many middle-aged and early seniors can't afford private insurance, not to mention being frozen out because of prior heath conditions.

So you think the solution is to rip off the 27-40's and keep them from building wealth?

Oh, and as for 'protecting wealth building capabilities' vital to our economy, adding people to the insurance rolls is a kick up for GDP. But, aside from that, the idea that the health of the economy trumps the health of the people who labored to build it strikes me as coldly ungrateful, if not immoral. What are we becoming? Fodder for the economy...

If we remove the ability of those in the 27-40 age bracket to invest, buy homes, make major purchases etc the whole economy collapses.

You're changing directions. First it was people who could pay but would lose lifetime earnings. Now it's people who can 'least afford' to pay. The latter won't pay much if anything. How do we judge morality in the latter case?

Least afford to pay= 27-40 age bracket. The poor cant and don't pay. Obamacare taxes the wealth building of the 27-40 age bracket out of existence. They need that money to raise kids and build wealth, thus they ate the least able to pay.

[zraver]

No. Under most plans you have to pony up a copay and deductibles every time you get healthcare. That alone is a systemic incentive financially to be responsible for your own health. If you want to blow 5-7k of your hard earned money out the window every year because you refuse to be a bit healthier that is your choice and not a nanny thing at all. If anything the ACA makes you more responsible because you now have to pay something into the system. No more going in uninsured and getting a free ride with little or no personal responsibility. That is the nanny state way the ACA is moving away from.

Totally 100% untruthful. I'd call it a lie but that might start a shit storm. The only people getting a free ride are the poor, and guess what they still don't pay into the system, in fact ACA expands the number of free riders via the expansion of Medicaid. Everyone else who had been un/undercovered is forced away from a very efficient pay as you go approach. Now it is pay for other people as you go. It raises costs and will likely increase health care usage especially among the newly covered medicaid enrollees.

[JAD_333]

No, they are a group, membership changes over time, but the group as a whole uses far less health care than other groups and is taxed far more than other groups. That is immoral.

Well, immorality seems to be rampant. For years I've been paying taxes that pay for food stamps and a dozen other entitlement programs I've never gotten anything from. I'm just guessing, but if I could have my share of those taxes back, I'd be richer by far than I am today.

The young will now have less to spend on familial care because they are being unfairly taxed. A tax that will crush their ability to build wealth and leave anything for their own kids.

Well, we can't have it both ways. Medicare, Medicaid and private health insurance relieves many young people from the burden of paying for their parent's healthcare. What young person wouldn't prefer to be taxed rather than to be on the hook to write checks for their parent's medical bills? Contrary to what you believe, paying a tax or an insurance premium will save the 24-45 demographic group a ton of money compared to how much they would have had to shell if there was no Medicare, health insurance, etc.

Except that $20 a day is about $15 a day more than they were promised. The elderly, unhealthy and already sick do not have a right to my sons future earnings.

That is your own moral dilemma. Most people don't consider it a right, but a duty. Or, if not a duty, it's a return on the sacrifices their parents made in raising them.

I don't want to take anyone's life, I just don't want my son paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for treatments that at best only bring 6 months of extended low quality life. Palliative care yes, super human efforts for 6 months of mostly hospital bound existence- no. I say this as my own father lies in hospice dying of lung cancer. My grandmother on my mothers side died of the same disease. I will probably die of it after smoking for 30 years... I do not deserve to rip off children as a reward for my bad health choices.

Agree.

You keep missing mine. Obamacare is theft from the young by the old and already sick to deliver entitlements that were never promised and never paid for.

Sounds like par for the course in our world already burdened with social programs most people never use, but pay for. You're safer on Constitutional grounds.

What risk pool? Obamacare dispenses with risk pools and puts everyone into the same pot and then shifts the bulk of the costs off the sick and onto the healthy. That is the whole premise of ACA. Age brackets are risk pools

I said 'pool' not 'pools'. You can have one pool, like for fire insurance. Withing the pool, the premium will be set according to the amount you can expect to get if your house burns down. Obamacare has one pool, and 4 premium levels, determined by such factors as income and amount of co-pays and caps on payouts you choose. All premiums go into one pool, unlike private group insurance. Young people choosing the lowest level may pay nothing at all.

So you think the solution is to rip off the 27-40's and keep them from building wealth?

lol...I ain't falling for that old debate trick. 'Rip off' is your term and, what's more, your conclusion is far from proven.

If we remove the ability of those in the 27-40 age bracket to invest, buy homes, make major purchases etc the whole economy collapses.

Your question assumes Obamacare will make it impossible for 27-40 year old Americans to invest, etc. If you're basing that on the $20 a day you say they'll have to pay in Obamacare premiums, you're saying these young people are incapable of managing their discretionary income to come up $20 to invest. Furthermore, you're assuming the $20 is taken out of the economy, when just the opposite is true. GDP will rise because the money goes to pay for medical services and goods.

[zraver]

Well, immorality seems to be rampant. For years I've been paying taxes that pay for food stamps and a dozen other entitlement programs I've never gotten anything from. I'm just guessing, but if I could have my share of those taxes back, I'd be richer by far than I am today.

Food supports are critical to maintaining social order.

Well, we can't have it both ways. Medicare, Medicaid and private health insurance relieves many young people from the burden of paying for their parent's healthcare.

So you assume the young are obligated to pay for the old?

What young person wouldn't prefer to be taxed rather than to be on the hook to write checks for their parent's medical bills?

No part of our system has ever assumed debts were intra-generational except for minor children. You seem to assume the inverse...

Contrary to what you believe, paying a tax or an insurance premium will save the 24-45 demographic group a ton of money compared to how much they would have had to shell if there was no Medicare, health insurance, etc.

I reject that out of hand. Medicare is paid for via payroll through very modest taxes and reasonable premiums.

That is your own moral dilemma. Most people don't consider it a right, but a duty. Or, if not a duty, it's a return on the sacrifices their parents made in raising them.

There is no duty to impoverish the young to care for the old.

Sounds like par for the course in our world already burdened with social programs most people never use, but pay for. You're safer on Constitutional grounds.

SCOTUS has already decided it is constitutional... right up there with Citizens United as disgusting perversions of what the Constitution intended.

I said 'pool' not 'pools'. You can have one pool, like for fire insurance. Withing the pool, the premium will be set according to the amount you can expect to get if your house burns down.

That is not what Obamacare does. Under your fire insurance example the person with the million dollar home would pay less than the person with the twenty grand single wide... The whole premise of Obamacare is to shift the cost burden off of those who use the services onto the shoulders of those who don't.

Obamacare has one pool, and 4 premium levels, determined by such factors as income and amount of co-pays and caps on payouts you choose. All premiums go into one pool, unlike private group insurance. Young people choosing the lowest level may pay nothing at all.

Obamacare has one pool artificially divided by both age and coverage levels.

lol...I ain't falling for that old debate trick. 'Rip off' is your term and, what's more, your conclusion is far from proven.

It makes 27-40's pay more in order to decrease the costs of those who use more. What would you call deliberately overcharging one group of customers to benefit another.

Your question assumes Obamacare will make it impossible for 27-40 year old Americans to invest, etc. If you're basing that on the $20 a day you say they'll have to pay in Obamacare premiums, you're saying these young people are incapable of managing their discretionary income to come up $20 to invest. Furthermore, you're assuming the $20 is taken out of the economy, when just the opposite is true. GDP will rise because the money goes to pay for medical services and goods.

First, they will each individually lose up to $600 a month in discretionary income. That is hard to replace, that income is not going into anything productive its a financial black hole. It means fewer TV's, cars, homes, 401k contributions... Its the same argument about taxes you should be familiar with it. More taxes equals less economic growth. Second, that same amount of money was not going to be idle if the government did not seize it, the young don't hide it under the mattresses, they buy goods, property and serves or invest it. So to say taking it from them is going to magically increase GDP is contrary to every rule of economics I've ever heard- its simply re-allocating it from productive to unproductive uses. If anything it is taking money away from investments like 401k's and homes is going to hurt overall GDP and hinder its growth.

[JAD_333]

Food supports are critical to maintaining social order.

That's what the Romans thought.

So you assume the young are obligated to pay for the old?

Legally no. Morally? That's a matter for each person's conscience.

No part of our system has ever assumed debts were intra-generational except for minor children. You seem to assume the inverse...

I was speaking of familial ties, not legal bonds. Just the same, moral considerations do compel people to care for their elderly parents. But I asked you what those people prefer: To pay taxes and premiums for programs that pay the cost of care, or be faced with the moral dilemma of bearing the cost themselves or walking away. You took the position that they aren't legally required to do so. Well, yes. But that doesn't answer the question. Perhaps you would like to make it illegal for people to care for their sick parents so the economy will prosper.

I reject that out of hand. Medicare is paid for via payroll through very modest taxes and reasonable premiums.

You can reject the concept. But the fact remains that many people don't and won't walk away from sick family members in time of need. That is money not spent on TVs and cars. Insurance relieves them of the financial consequences of their moral decision.

There is no duty to impoverish the young to care for the old.

Once again, you speak of legal duty. There are other duties, voluntary thought they may be, that carry a good deal of social force.

SCOTUS has already decided it is constitutional... right up there with Citizens United as disgusting perversions of what the Constitution intended.

Rather obliquely, and I agree with you on both counts. Chief Justice John Roberts...rejected arguments that the mandate was a permissible use of federal authority to regulate interstate commerce. But he said that the mandate was effectively the same as a tax and, as a result, passed constitutional muster.

That is not what Obamacare does. Under your fire insurance example the person with the million dollar home would pay less than the person with the twenty grand single wide... The whole premise of Obamacare is to shift the cost burden off of those who use the services onto the shoulders of those who don't.

You have a point about fire insurance. Let correct you on your second point: The premise of Obamacare is universal health care. Everyone buys a policy and everyone is entitled to healthcare when they need it. As it happens some people will need it more, and some less. Why should a healthy person pay less today, when inevitably he will grow older and less healthy? Isn't it beneficial that he'll still be paying the same premium in his old age as he did in his youth? That can only happen if he began paying that premium in his youth.

It makes 27-40's pay more in order to decrease the costs of those who use more. What would you call deliberately overcharging one group of customers to benefit another.

Sure, it's deliberate. Is 'deliberate' a disqualification for passing a tax? So are taxes to fund Medicaid. I don't use Medicaid; I am being overcharged.

First, they will each individually lose up to $600 a month in discretionary income. That is hard to replace, that income is not going into anything productive its a financial black hole. It means fewer TV's, cars, homes, 401k contributions... Its the same argument about taxes you should be familiar with it. More taxes equals less economic growth. Second, that same amount of money was not going to be idle if the government did not seize it, the young don't hide it under the mattresses, they buy goods, property and serves or invest it. So to say taking it from them is going to magically increase GDP is contrary to every rule of economics I've ever heard- its simply re-allocating it from productive to unproductive uses. If anything it is taking money away from investments like 401k's and homes is going to hurt overall GDP and hinder its growth.

"Sorry, ma'am, no healthcare for you. We need the money to build cars. And junior wants a Play Station."

I am not an economist, but from everything I've read, the healthcare industry is as much a part of the economy as all the other sectors you mentioned. Your $600 figure is a bit suspect. For one thing, few young people will be paying that much, and those that do probably will be in their late 20s and early 30s, at which point they'll be building families and need healthcare insurance. And in their case, $600/mo isn't bad for a policy. Young people under, say 27, will still be buying stuff because that's what they do, and the $100 or so they'll be paying for a policy will hardly make a dent in their buying habits. See, I can create scenarios too.:) I question your assertion that healthcare premiums divert money from productive to unproductive uses. Since when is a healthy workforce an unproductive use, and what of all the medical devices, healthcare workers, medicines...don't they require paid workers who are also consumers? Keep in mind that healthcare reform came about because health care costs were growing faster than people's income. Here I might agree with you a bit: The upward trajectory of healthcare costs threatens other vital sectors of the economy that we can ill afford to lose.

[zraver]

That's what the Romans thought.

The French ignored it and it cost the King his head... Hungry populations riot and upset the existing social order. History is replete with examples.

Legally no. Morally? That's a matter for each person's conscience.

I've never seen a compelling argument that says the working generation has to care for its parents at the expense of its young. In fact i think any society that assumes such would soon be consigned to the ashheap of history.

I was speaking of familial ties, not legal bonds. Just the same, moral considerations do compel people to care for their elderly parents. But I asked you what those people prefer: To pay taxes and premiums for programs that pay the cost of care, or be faced with the moral dilemma of bearing the cost themselves or walking away. You took the position that they aren't legally required to do so. Well, yes. But that doesn't answer the question. Perhaps you would like to make it illegal for people to care for their sick parents so the economy will prosper.

If I chose to care for my ailing mother, wrecking my estate and leaving nothing for my sons that is my choice. But I should not have the choice to do that to your estate leaving nothing for your sons.

You can reject the concept. But the fact remains that many people don't and won't walk away from sick family members in time of need. That is money not spent on TVs and cars. Insurance relieves them of the financial consequences of their moral decision.

Again that is their choice, but their choice does not entitle them to my sons future.

Once again, you speak of legal duty. There are other duties, voluntary thought they may be, that carry a good deal of social force.

Yup like caring for the poor and disabled. Sorry, but spending a million dollars to buy a former smoker an extra six months of hospital room existence should not be one of them. That is the bulk of health care spending. families should be free to spend that money if they want and if they have it. They should not be free to raid my families piggy bank for it.

Rather obliquely, and I agree with you on both counts. Chief Justice John Roberts...rejected arguments that the mandate was a permissible use of federal authority to regulate interstate commerce. But he said that the mandate was effectively the same as a tax and, as a result, passed constitutional muster.

travesty

You have a point about fire insurance. Let correct you on your second point: The premise of Obamacare is universal health care. Everyone buys a policy and everyone is entitled to healthcare when they need it. As it happens some people will need it more, and some less. Why should a healthy person pay less today, when inevitably he will grow older and less healthy? Isn't it beneficial that he'll still be paying the same premium in his old age as he did in his youth? That can only happen if he began paying that premium in his youth.

Then our imaginary hypothetical example young man should have his premium increase as his risk increases. Under the ACA it goes down. This puts the biggest burden on the people who should be building wealth.

Sure, it's deliberate. Is 'deliberate' a disqualification for passing a tax? So are taxes to fund Medicaid. I don't use Medicaid; I am being overcharged.

see my point about food supports and your own point about social forces.

"Sorry, ma'am, no healthcare for you. We need the money to build cars. And junior wants a Play Station."

Absolutely, sicne Ma'am obviously is not my mom. If she was it would be mom and I would not expect you to kick in anything. My mom, you, I we are entitled to what we paid in, not more than that.

I am not an economist, but from everything I've read, the healthcare industry is as much a part of the economy as all the other sectors you mentioned. Your $600 figure is a bit suspect. For one thing, few young people will be paying that much, and those that do probably will be in their late 20s and early 30s, at which point they'll be building families and need healthcare insurance.

That is per person, in truth they will likely be paying more than that. Your own figures put the required spending at 670 per month per person regardless of age. Obamcare's premium equization acutally requires that the young pay a disproportionate larger amount than any other group. A disabled person using a grand a month in services will only be charged half that and the healthy person picks up the rest.

And in their case, $600/mo isn't bad for a policy.

per person...

Young people under, say 27, will still be buying stuff because that's what they do, and the $100 or so they'll be paying for a policy will hardly make a dent in their buying habits. See, I can create scenarios too.:)

The last time consumers took a $100 a month hit to their discetionary spending the economy started a death spiral that ended up with a housing collapse (fuel price spikes)...

I question your assertion that healthcare premiums divert money from productive to unproductive uses. Since when is a healthy workforce an unproductive use,

In 2006, six times more health care spending is spent on people in their last 6 months to year of life, (most of them elderly and not part of the work force) than on a normal person.

Cost and Quality Conundrum of U.S. | Medicare News Group

and what of all the medical devices, healthcare workers, medicines...don't they require paid workers who are also consumers? Keep in mind that healthcare reform came about because health care costs were growing faster than people's income. Here I might agree with you a bit: The upward trajectory of healthcare costs threatens other vital sectors of the economy that we can ill afford to lose.

Money spent on the elderly end of life patients is a black-hole. Its not an investment and it takes resources that could be productive used elsewhere. Reform how we spend existing health care dollars and we can cover everyone without the disaster that is Obamacare. Stealing from the young to continue the current system only benefits the monies interests.

[JAD_333]

The French ignored it and it cost the King his head... Hungry populations riot and upset the existing social order. History is replete with examples.

I agree, but remember the context. We were speaking of taxes for things not all people use. Food stamps was an example. The question was, why should I have to pay for something I don't use. Same question goes for people who pay premiums for healthcare insurance they don't use.

I've never seen a compelling argument that says the working generation has to care for its parents at the expense of its young. In fact i think any society that assumes such would soon be consigned to the ashheap of history.

It's not an argument. It's a private matter of love and compassion. Not long ago people did just that. But as government programs stepped in, they cut back. Not saying that is a bad thing. Just saying if your elderly parents had recourse to a healthcare program, your help would not be needed.

As for the rest of your post, I think we've exhausted our arguments. Good discussion.

[Doktor]

So, let me get this right...

Do Americans believe the healthcare costs will lower now?

It is way to high as it is, and instead of lowering it the Gov brings more people in to cover the costs, instead of reducing them

[Tamara]

So, let me get this right...

Do Americans believe the healthcare costs will lower now?

It is way to high as it is, and instead of lowering it the Gov brings more people in to cover the costs, instead of reducing them

Quite frankly, it is interesting to see what various people believe...........if not terrifying.

[astralis]

doktor,

So, let me get this right...

Do Americans believe the healthcare costs will lower now?

It is way to high as it is, and instead of lowering it the Gov brings more people in to cover the costs, instead of reducing them

US healthcare costs are already slowing, although whether or not this can be tied to the ACA is up for debate. what i expect to see is something a la switzerland, where healthcare costs slowed down dramatically while out of pocket costs increased modestly.

the swiss system is still not as cost-efficient as a public system, but hell, i'll take 30% overall reduction in healthcare costs over the current horrible mix of private-public support that we have in the US today.

then again we all know switzerland to be a dictatorship where the old run roughshod over the young, that is, if you actually live to get old under such a communist healthcare system...:)

[bonehead]

Totally 100% untruthful. I'd call it a lie but that might start a shit storm. The only people getting a free ride are the poor, and guess what they still don't pay into the system, in fact ACA expands the number of free riders via the expansion of Medicaid. Everyone else who had been un/undercovered is forced away from a very efficient pay as you go approach. Now it is pay for other people as you go. It raises costs and will likely increase health care usage especially among the newly covered medicaid enrollees.

Those people will pay at tax time and/or when they get a major medical event. They may pay late/too little but they will pay something which is better than what was happening before when up to 25% of the patients who go to a hospital are not insured and skip out leaving the rest to pick up the tab via higher healthcare bills and premiums. Joining the plan after the fact will get their bills paid thus saving their all important credit rating and allowing them to.......build the wealth that they would have been denied otherwise. If these people were smart they will keep their insurance, healthier people work more and thus get promoted faster. They will also be able to take advantage of wellness which is highly encouraged under the ACA. If they take care of the small stuff early they can long delay onset of the big diseases or head them off entirely saving the system billions or more down the road.