Are states' rights more important than human lives?

[DinoDoc]

Can I see some evidence of the cost curve going down then MtG?

[MichaeltheGreat]

After the full mandates kick in after 2014, I'm sure it'll be available. It's kind of hard to find data for provisions that aren't yet in effect. The municipal cost side doesn't rely on voluntary actions (unless that's chosen policy) - in California, if you use municipal paramedic or ambulance services, or public health services, and you have insurance to bill against, the responding agency bills that insurance to recoup costs. That provision of law doesn't help when you're mandated to respond and treat, but the party doesn't have insurance.

I think there's already data available on Romneycare, but I can't be arsed to look it up. You like to find obscure articles.

[DinoDoc]

Well I will grant you the New York Times isn't what it used to be but I would hardly call it obscure. I'm also not the one claiming it will drive costs down. I'd just like to see some evidence of that.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Well I will grant you the New York Times isn't what it used to be but I would hardly call it obscure. I'm also not the one claiming it will drive costs down. I'd just like to see some evidence of that.

Well, that's the theory, but that part of the bill doesn't kick in until next year. The answer is, like all things in the political domain, one can make the costs rise or fall as your ideology dictates just by playing scoping and accounting games. That's why we'll all be speaking Chinese or Arabic within the next 100 years or so.

[Ben Kenobi]

Costs have gone up dramatically in Canada - you'll see the same here in the US. Doctor and health care professional compensation will go down too. Basically the only winners are the administrators.

[Ben Kenobi]

The problem with the insurance rates going up argument is that it implicitly assumes we're somehow magically not paying for the uninsured and high-risk people's health care costs - that they have the basic courtesy to not access taxpayer funded health resources and just die quietly in a convenient location without imposing a cost burden on the rest of us.

The problem is that this won't go away. You're assuming that these high risk people are going to get their act together? Why? They've got exactly what they want - free healthcare at their own convenience. Obamacare won't actually *stop* them from doing this or change their behaviour. Rather, you'll see just the opposite. More people will decide that this is the way to go - because their health care is free, or at least they think that's the case.

What you will see is rationing. Health care isn't free and there's always a cost associated with it. If you don't ration through price, you ration through availability. Which means, that even if the money is there - stuff won't be available. Rationing through availability is far less efficient than price rationing. Far less. And because it's less efficient - you'll end up spending more for worse health care. Doctor compensation will go down - while administrator compensation will go up.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Insert standard argument that there already is rationing (only available to the affluent) here.

Counter arguement is that thanks to this steaming pile of doo doo there is less incentive for new health care providers (be they doctors, new pharma research, or medical device development) to enter the field thanks to no relief from 7-8 years of schooling costs (at ever escalating costs), tort issues, longer hours at lower compensation. Thus rather than having demand outstrip supply (as is the case now) we have made clear we intend to additionally cripple supply going forward.


OTOH hip hip hooray for the insurance companies getting plenty of new insurees.

[Straybow]

In California three major health insurance issuers are raising rates 20% or more.

It is impossible to mandate coverage of preexisting conditions and have the cost go down. Econ 101.