@ ">>>single insurer, multiple, the result is the same-- declining services, higher deductibles, etc. can all decrease the cost. Don't be fooled by lower premiums alone."
'OMG EVERTHING IS GOING TO COLLAPSE!' This sounds an awful lot like merely regurgitating the sensationalist party line. Were do you keep getting this declining services claptrap? A Tea Party website? The ACA sets better minimum standards for coverage, so services will be much more comprehensive now. On average people will get more 'services.' How does that reduce my ability to perform a competent colectomy?
@ "One could easily argue that adding in the healthy people balances the cost
>>> again why would they? With insurers forced to take high risk individuals, and spreading that expense among the pool, a young healthy person has even less incentive to play the insurance game now."
Again, why wouldn't they? If you are allowed to arbitrarily endorse the absolute worst possibilities at every turn them I'm certainly allowed to propose that it might at least break even. You're being sensationalist again. Say, here's a thought- why don't we actually wait a bit and see if it works out?
Yes, it is possible as things are now for a young healthy person to game the system. They could decide to pay the small penalty rather than buy insurance, and only buy the insurance if they get sick (since pre-existing conditions cannot be disqualifying anymore). They might have to wait until the next sign-up period to get the insurance but until then they are still going to get medical care under COBRA, thus forcing you and I to pay for it, again. This is one of those problems with the ACA that needs to be fixed that people have been mentioning. Still, most people are smart enough to figure out that paying for something is better than paying for nothing, even if you bay a bit less for the nothing.
My mind boggles at how Fred et al can possibly think that this is a GOOD thing. It's basically the system that we have now- the insured pay for the medical care of the uninsured, in an extremely inefficient manner, at the highest possible markup, including for all the urgent care that could easily be prevented.
Wow. Yeah. That's clearly a better system, isn't it? *sarcasm*
For the ACA to work well and provide the best for everyone at lowest cost we need to have as many people participate as possible- this isn't any sort of revelation, I've been saying it all along. Also all along I've been saying that it is far from perfect- which it is. But 'imperfect' is a far cry from the unmitigated disaster that the Tea Partiers and other fanatics would have us believe. The stuff they claim is simply farcical. 30 minutes on FackCheck.org should convince any rational person of that. Have you taken your own advice yet, Fred? I'd love to know what you think of what FactCheck and PolitiFact have to say about all the anti-ACA distortions that the radical right is putting out. :)
But no, you will never take your own advice on this issue. It would cause you far too much cognitive dissonace.
@ "Was it posited back there somewhere among all those 1s and 0s that preventive care was going to save money? The evidence regarding that is mixed at best."
It's only 'mixed' because you're looking at 'evidence' being presented from the two radical elements on opposite sides. Look at the stuff put out by the CBO, Rand, KFF and other nonpartisan groups. I have to say that from an admittedly totally empirical point of view, given the stuff I've seen comprehensive preventive care HAS to save money. Frex- occasional visits to a nurse practitioner to tweak a diabetic's insulin dose is one hell of a lot cheaper that treating her for DKA every other month. (Of course, some diabetics are so brittle that they'll still get DKA every other month...)
EDIT-- Is someone named 'Kat' commenting? I'm not seeing any such posts.