5 ms·

The point (or at least one of the points) is that you cannot be permanently trapped without insurance, and thus essentially unable to access the American health

The point (or at least one of the points) is that you cannot be permanently trapped without insurance, and thus essentially unable to access the American healthcare system, if you acquire an expensive pre-existing condition, which many people do as they age from being young, healthy people to older, unhealthy people. Moreover, your premiums may go up, but if your income is low, those premiums will be subsidized. Merely banning health plans from excluding those with pre-existing conditions doesn't work, as you may know if you've ever had the displeasure of purchasing insurance on the individual market in New York State. Another 'point' of the law is to decrease the rate of increase of healthcare costs, and preliminary indicators are good: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/daily-reports/2013/july/30/health-care-costs.aspx http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/daily-reports/2013/july/30/h... There are very few young, healthy, high-income people in the United States buying health insurance on the individual market, and, quite frankly, they're able to take care of themselves.

old-gregg 13y ago
Thanks for the link, very interesting. But I fail to see how will this help us reduce the healthcare costs by several factors? (where they should be) "Slowing cost increases" is fantastic but it's too late: the costs are already at 500% of normal and I just don't see how will this be fixed. An example: a 3-hour stay at the hospital (wrist surgery) was billed to me at $44K which is what insurance company actually paid. It included a few hundred dollars for a can of apple juice.
- akgerber 13y ago
  I am willing to bet your health insurance did not actually pay $44K, but rather the rate they had previously negotiated with an in-network providers for the services rendered. The high cost of healthcare stems from many systemic factors, all of which are pretty thoroughly screwed up. Tearing the system down and replacing it with something entirely new (perhaps a single-payer system, or a system with single-payer basic insurance) would be a great idea, but reorganizing an industry representing 17.9% of GDP[0] of one of the world's largest economies is a nontrivial undertaking, especially with one of the two major political parties dedicated to preserving the status quo by any means available. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_Stat...

old-gregg 13y ago

Thanks for the link, very interesting. But I fail to see how will this help us reduce the healthcare costs by several factors? (where they should be) "Slowing cost increases" is fantastic but it's too late: the costs are already at 500% of normal and I just don't see how will this be fixed. An example: a 3-hour stay at the hospital (wrist surgery) was billed to me at $44K which is what insurance company actually paid. It included a few hundred dollars for a can of apple juice.

akgerber 13y ago
I am willing to bet your health insurance did not actually pay $44K, but rather the rate they had previously negotiated with an in-network providers for the services rendered. The high cost of healthcare stems from many systemic factors, all of which are pretty thoroughly screwed up. Tearing the system down and replacing it with something entirely new (perhaps a single-payer system, or a system with single-payer basic insurance) would be a great idea, but reorganizing an industry representing 17.9% of GDP[0] of one of the world's largest economies is a nontrivial undertaking, especially with one of the two major political parties dedicated to preserving the status quo by any means available. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_Stat...