ObamaCares works!

So I will repeat because no one seems to be able to answer this.

Would those that support the ACA funding methodology be willing to use it to solve funding problems for other essential services such as food, housing and education?

Why is the ACAs funding, which are obviously now the most modern and advanced way to fund a societal need, the best solution for health care via insurance, but not something we should use to fund this other stuff? Don't we also have big issues in Schools with $300k per class per year not being enough and houses too expensive, etc.?

We just had a housing crash, not a medical crash....but we "solved" the minor medical issue with this ACA vs. the major Housing issue that is still in the stinker.

If it is so good, why not use it more, forced insurance for essential services?

Why are the ACA lovers stopping with health care? Saving money for wars (because apparently, you will need it)?

P.S. This post assumes the ACA is great.

Good post otn and some good questions. Im lucky not to ever have been real poor just semipoor. The problem is that you can't compare health insurance with food or shelter, maybe education. The healthcare law forces everybody to buy insurance and you couldn't do that with food or shelter. Maybe you could do that with education but you couldnt force people to do well in school unless you penalized them somehow. I think they intentionally made a law that would never fly so they could universal care eventually. I wish they would have just cut to the chase and pushed for that instead of this confusing mess.

KJack wrote: Good post otn and some good questions. Im lucky not to ever have been real poor just semipoor. The problem is that you can't compare health insurance with food or shelter, maybe education. The healthcare law forces everybody to buy insurance and you couldn't do that with food or shelter. Maybe you could do that with education but you couldnt force people to do well in school unless you penalized them somehow. I think they intentionally made a law that would never fly so they could universal care eventually. I wish they would have just cut to the chase and pushed for that instead of this confusing mess.

I am not clear why the govt can force someone to buy private health risk insurance but not force them to buy food insurance (like Aflac). They force them to directly fund schools, insurance could work here too, again once you force it. People are not forced to be healthy with the ACA, just fund insurance companies. The goal, as LJ says is not to get people healthy, it is to get more people in the system so the doctors and the insurance companies get paid and the cost of their service goes down. The ASSUMPTION is that once you do go to them, you will be healthier and cost society less money in the emergency room. This can work with education too, no one says they need to do good in school, just pay the teachers and most of all the administrators (where all that $300k a year goes, I guess, because it does not seem to end up in classrooms). When you get a mortgage, but are relatively poor, you must buy mortgage payment insurance in order to get the loan. The products I am discussing already exist. All it takes to force someone to buy them is a vote of a few hundred people, just like the ACA. If I owned these companies and had little morals, I would certainly be lobbying for forced purchases, or perhaps waiting until some of the heat blows off and I will do it in another year or two. Either way, it is impossible for other industries not to eventually be funded the way the health insurance risk industry is now funded, but force. We decided this will be the new foundation of our economics simply by accepting the ACA.

Interesting otn. Have you considered that this is the first major one in a series of more to come?

You already have to buy car insurance if you want to drive. I know people who have been charged for letting it lapse.
Precedent set.

With the unfunded liabilities of Social Security, I can easily see where a future Congress might use the force of government to compel everyone to purchase life insurance and disability insurance so that Social Security doesn't have to provide for the surviving spouse and children in the future. In fact, since using the force of government to compel participation in commerce of Congress' choosing has been found to be constitutional, I might even advocate that it be done.

As far as education goes, that is pretty easy. If your child doesn't perform at or above grade level then the parents are taxed with the proceeds of that tax going into the education system to provide teachers and administrators with higher pay and better benefits.

Can't afford a new car? We'll just tax the late model ones so that we can fund a subsidy for those that want one. Don't like hybrids or plug-in vehicles? We'll let you keep your old style vehicle as long as you don't change anything about it, but if you want new tires, or new brakes, or even something as minor as a new oil filter, then the vehicle will have to comply with the brand new mandates enacted by Congress. Sound familiar to anyone? It should.

The ACA isn't going to lower the cost of health care. That isn't something a law compelling the purchase of health insurance is capable of doing. Nor is it going to lower the cost of insurance because the insurance companies are going to have to pay out more "benefits" to comply with mandates set by Congress. It isn't going to stop medical bankruptcy because co-pays are still an integral part of the insurance. Hospitals are still going to have to provide care to those without insurance - those here in violation of immigration laws are not required to carry insurance, nor is any citizen of the Union for that matter, they simply have to pay a tax if they decide not to participate in the commerce mandated by the Congress - but hospitals are still going to have to care for them, just as they do now, if they don't have insurance. It isn't going to have an effect on the cost of treating afflictions either. How many people do you know that have insurance and don't even go to the doctor for an annual physical?

Bottom line is that the cost of health care isn't going to be impacted at all by the ACA, at least not in a positive sense. If anything, consumption of care is going to go up, not down. When demand increases for a fixed supply, guess what happens to the price? This is Econ 101 folks. It's why we are paying $100 per barrel today compared to $40 a barrel 20 years ago for crude oil. The demand has gone up while proven reserves have remained the same (well, that and a government which is consciously lowering the value of our currency, but I digress). Would anyone like to explain to me how this basic law of supply and demand isn't applicable to health care costs?

Of course ObamaCares will lower the cost of both health insurance and medical costs, or at least keep the rate of increases at a much lower level than previously. Printsmith fails to provide a single fact other than his personal opinions and conjectures that he tries to pass off. It is axiomatic that the more individuals who have health insurance, including the young and healthy paying into the health insurance pools will lower the cost across the board. Further, the medical costs will certainly be lower since the free riders who are unable or unwilling to pay for insurance and the costs of their medical care will now be much fewer, meaning that medical providers will be paid so that they will not be forced to have those costs absorbed into the health insurance premiums of those who do have coverage.

We are already seeing that happen. Medical costs are increasing at the lowest rate in many years and insurance premiums are increasing at the lowest rate in years as well, even dropping in some instances.

Having limited million dollar health insurance policies change to unlimited will reduce costs for Americans?

It doesn't work that way with car insurance, or life insurance, why should it work with health insurance? If you want to upgrade your 100K life insurance policy to 100million dollars, you are going to pay more.

IBM has just thrown their retirees onto Obama's health exchanges. Hopefully you are right and the cost of their care declines but the people affected don't think so.

A $100,000 health insurance policy would be virtually worthless. That wouldn't even cover one bout with cancer or a couple operations. But I doubt many people would go through 100 million.

archer wrote: A $100,000 health insurance policy would be virtually worthless. That wouldn't even cover one bout with cancer or a couple operations.

But many Americans would be fine with one million dollars of coverage. And if you did have a limit, you would make choices about what health concerns you want to address. With unlimited cost coverage, might as well sign up for both knee replacements and hip replacements, right?