Obama|ACA|Socialism|The Death of the USA|Welfare State

Thoughts on universal healthcare.

With ACA being a ridiculously over plugged topic on the forum, I thought I'd touch on some issues about universal healthcare. Many people here hammer out talking points like the ones in the title of this thread whenever an ACA thread comes up. An earlier one today, simply asked people to stop spreading disinformation on it, to wait on some facts, and people just couldn't resist claiming the sky was falling and there was all the evidence in the world to prove it.

The forums have become polarized and biased again. Any major political bill like ACA, with a big opposition, and this place turns into a mud slinging pit. Similar to election years.

ACA and legit information? Hard to find. Everyone is quick to jump on it, condemn it, dismiss it, hate it. I'm not here to give you reason why it's good, why it's bad, or anything of the like. I just want to talk about universal healthcare overall, and why ACA, even if it was a twisted attempt at coming closer to such, is not nearly enough.

Keep in mind when you do hear about ACA though, that the biggest opponents have been politicians who are bought and paid for, by insurance companies, by medical health companies, by drug companies, because the new laws are not good for them. That means they are losing.

If they are losing, who is winning? I find that intriguing to say the least. But I digress, this is not about ACA, this is about universal healthcare, something that ACA falls short of, but perhaps in its inception was intended to come close to.

Let's talk about the principals of universal health.

Note: Green text is entirely sarstic.



I think people are unaware of the history of health care in the US and in the world in general. Or that the idea of free healthcare (subsidized/nationalized) is somehow bad. Somehow a free lunch. Somehow detrimental overall to the country if the citizens were to all chip in for each other for health services.

Because we all know that if universal health care is made available to the US public then, goddammit, it'll be just a blink away from turning into a full communist state! Or even worse, Socialism! Socialism we all know is the word and act of the devil, who tries to imbed his sick twisted ideologies in us to bring down the nation, make everyone give up their wealth to the poorest, laziest scum the country has to offer. A welfare state bred through evil socialism.


ACA is by no means a proper universal health care system. And insurance companies, still get to make a bulk profit, as do drug companies, as do medical tech companies. Not that med tech companies and drug companies shouldn't make some profit, but the cuts, breaks, tax incentives, kickbacks, rules favouring only the largest companies.

What about a nationalized system or one that simply ensures everyone has access to free (shared cost) healthcare, so that each individual of the nation can get adequate health services?

European countries were some of the first to make efforts for universal health care.

...Other developed countries have had some form of social insurance (that later evolved into national insurance) for nearly as long as the US has been trying to get it.

Some European countries started with compulsory sickness insurance, one of the first systems, for workers beginning in Germany in 1883; other countries including Austria, Hungary, Norway, Britain, Russia, and the Netherlands followed all the way through 1912.

Other European countries, including Sweden in 1891, Denmark in 1892, France in 1910, and Switzerland in 1912, subsidized the mutual benefit societies that workers formed among themselves. So for a very long time, other countries have had some form of universal health care or at least the beginnings of it.

The primary reason for the emergence of these programs in Europe was income stabilization and protection against the wage loss of sickness rather than payment for medical expenses, which came later.

Programs were not universal to start with and were originally conceived as a means of maintaining incomes and buying political allegiance of the workers.

What about stateside? Well, there was a president who had some ideas:

Roosevelt had the right impression, he believed that a weak citizenship was a reflection of a weak economy. This is one of those things that reaches to core issues, root problems. Similar to the current crime epidemic in the US. Everyone so focused on this drug war and that gun war, and moral this and indignant that, forgetting any root causes, forgetting that the aim should be to reduce criminality not indirectly encourage and exploit it.

The worse shape your population is in, the worse they will perform. If a quarter of your population is not receiving adequate care, whether it be physical or mental health, the less productive they will be.

Roosevelt:

Theodore Roosevelt 1901 — 1909

During the Progressive Era, President Theodore Roosevelt was in power and although he supported health insurance because he believed that no country could be strong whose people were sick and poor, most of the initiative for reform took place outside of government. Roosevelt’s successors were mostly conservative leaders, who postponed for about twenty years the kind of presidential leadership that might have involved the national government more extensively in the management of social welfare.

Roosevelt ultimately failed at bringing in a universal health care plan, unemployment insurance and old age pensions became topic #1 because of the climate.

He was followed by Truman who also had similar views on bringing in a UHC plan, but, with the new communist threat, all it took was the dirty word "socialist" or "socialized medicine" and suddenly fingers were pointing and people were whispering.

After FDR died, Truman became president (1945-1953), and his tenure is characterized by the Cold War and Communism. The health care issue finally moved into the center arena of national politics and received the unreserved support of an American president. Though he served during some of the most virulent anti-Communist attacks and the early years of the Cold War, Truman fully supported national health insurance. But the opposition had acquired new strength. Compulsory health insurance became entangled in the Cold War and its opponents were able to make “socialized medicine” a symbolic issue in the growing crusade against Communist influence in America.

Everyone talks about how they hate how the word "terrorist" is synonymous with pretty much anyone the government doesn't like now a days. How the US landscape has been shaped into a paranoid bowl of domestics, foreigns, all labelled as hellbent destroyers of America simply because they voiced some dissent which should be protected by freedom of speech. Yet, this tradition of scaring the crap out of yourselves using "dirty" words, is alive and strong as ever.

May as well roll out the propaganda signs from WWII and the Cold War.

In fact, there are many socialist nations and/or nations that at least have socialized medicine, which do very well for themselves and well for their citizens.

CONT...

...CONT

Sad to see people scared off simply by a couple of well placed words, name calling, fear mongering.

Obamacare, worst thing to happen to US since slavery.

Threads like the above / Comparing ACA to slavery, really? And a ex quote from that thread:

Dr. Carson further compared the new health care reform to policies envisioned by Vladimir Lenin, one of the fathers of socialism and communism.

“Socialized medicine is the keystone in the establishment of a socialist state,”

This here is not about ACA, it's clearly about fear mongering. Any step in the direction of universal healthcare, or even altering healthcare, is apparently a step towards a socialist/communist state.

Forget that there are more than a dozen alphabet agencies operating without impunity, forget that the US houses the highest population of prisoners per capita in the entire world, forget that the state has mass spying programs on all the citizens. Yes sir bucko, it's that bloody healthcare that is going to make you resemble USSR / Soviet Russia.




Addressing root causes of things is really great, it lets you solve issues before they become issues. When it comes to healthcare, that means making sure your citizens are fixed up so they can keep contributing to society. Work, earn money, raise the GDP. If they are laid up at home sick, they can't do that.

Kind of like making sure you don't criminalize every normal human action, so you don't end up putting half your male adult population in jail at one point in their life. So they too, can contribute to society. 1 in 2.5 men will end up in jail or arrested some point in their lives in the US.

Here, let's touch on one that spans both subjects: Mental Health:

Mental disorders are common in the United States and internationally. An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year.1 When applied to the 2004 U.S. Census residential population estimate for ages 18 and older, this figure translates to 57.7 million people.2 Even though mental disorders are widespread in the population, the main burden of illness is concentrated in a much smaller proportion — about 6 percent, or 1 in 17 — who suffer from a serious mental illness.1 In addition, mental disorders are the leading cause of disability in the U.S. and Canada.3 Many people suffer from more than one mental disorder at a given time. Nearly half (45 percent) of those with any mental disorder meet criteria for 2 or more disorders, with severity strongly related to comorbidity.1

57 million people with mental health disorders. People who may end up in jail, end up losing their jobs, generally be unproductive, be a detriment on society. Are they all receiving proper healthcare to address these mental issues they are having? Well, universal health care would be something to address a problem like this. Something that could be the root cause of many problems in your country. Something that would easily pay itself off by cutting costs associated with not treating such conditions.




If you are not going to read any of this thread, please just read the following quote:

Its remarkable how low America places in health care efficiency: among the 48 countries included in the Bloomberg study, the U.S. ranks 46th, outpacing just Serbia and Brazil. Once that sinks in, try this one on for size: the U.S. ranks worse than China, Algeria, and Iran.

But the sheer numbers are really what's humbling about this list: the U.S. ranks second in health care cost per capita ($8,608), only to be outspent by Switzerland ($9,121) -- which, for the record, boasts a top-10 health care system in terms of efficiency. Furthermore, the U.S. is tops in terms of health care cost relative to GDP, with 17.2 percent of the country's wealth spent on medical care for every American.

www.huffingtonpost.com...




I'm not sure if this last bit here has drove it home for you or not. You might not like ACA, and you know what, you shouldn't. You should be asking for more than ACA. You should be asking for a fully socialized universal health care system.

Hell, you are paying more now than some of the countries who have the best system's on earth, but you rank lower than Algeria.

Do any of you actually get it? You all get swindled by the way the system is set up, which benefits private industry and profit. And a select few, like the Koch brother who spent 500 million curing his cancer, well, they do all right, but the rest of you get shafted.

And you know why you get shafted.

You are all so damn afraid of being socialists. It's actually so sad it's funny.



Sources

www.pnhp.org...

www.nimh.nih.gov...

reply to post by boncho


I know this isn't quite about obamacare, but here's to everyone who wants good healthcare!! Medicine doesn't make you better, healthy food does!

reply to post by boncho


Well said and believe it or not (other thread notwithstanding) I pretty much completely agree with you.

What about a nationalized system or one that simply ensures everyone has access to free (shared cost) healthcare, so that each individual of the nation can get adequate health services? European countries were some of the first to make efforts for universal health care.

There are few things I would suggest nationalizing but this might be one of them. The ACA however is simply a disaster and needs to go. Along with the corporate over monetized healthcare industry. We absolutely need a real solution.

I don't hate ACA because of socialism. I see socialism as any other system.

I hate ACA because

- i pay insurance specialists to obtain our providers with annual open bids
- guide me through minefields relating to regulatory issues
- act as a liason between me and the insurance company

What do they say? "Um, yeah...we don't know. But this is what we think. Stand by for updates".

No one knows what is in the damn thing once it gets rolled out. There are thousands of individual directives that have yet to be defined/clarified by the various agencies involved, so my reporting requirements are constantly in flux with new updates.

Meanwhile, since the law was passed, my insurance premium (through my wifes job with the State of Texas) has gone from $450/mo to almost $800/mo. Meanwhile the copay has increased to $25 (up 5 bucks), xrays are no longer covered, the deductible has doubled, and several doctors have announced they will no longer see people with that particular insurance (because of the titty twisting done during the billing process).



Jesus Christ, Ill pay the taxes.

Those of us who live in a country that has a UHC system in place often scratch our heads in bewilderment at the Americans who spew unfounded paranoia of becoming a "socialist" country and losing your "independence" from "tyranny".


And although there is no such thing as a "perfect" UHC system in any country, personally, I'd much rather have a not-so-perfect system than one where I stand a chance of going bankrupt and/or losing my house and home because I keel over from an unexpected mass myocardial infarction tomorrow.


So maybe It's time for some mythbusting for those of you living in fear of becoming "pinko communist" ?

Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.

In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent.

Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.

The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead.

Think about it.

It's not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.

Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.

Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.

What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.

Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it.

While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.

There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.

Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.

There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society.

Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs.

Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.

Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.

Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.

Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers.

Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.

Link


Is Obamacare like a universal health care plan ?

Not even close.


The more important question is:

Do the majority of Americans want universal health care or not ?


Do you want to continue paying a middle-man to decide the fate of your individual health care needs ?

Or do you want to form a common pool of funds that gets paid directly to a doctor who makes the decisions of your individual health care needs ?


Do you want to work together for the common good ?

Or do you want to continue with a divide and conquer of the class-based system that only benefits those sitting at the top of the pyramid ?



Only you guys can decide that for yourselves... and only you guys can force your elected officials to fulfill those wants.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


If that is your job, you may want to read the pertinent sections.

Link: AFFORDABLE CARE ACT





Titty Twisting?

reply to post by BurbGirl378


I am not a lawyer, and thus am not adequately versed in what the interpretation of various elements of ACA will be. So we pay a firm to help guide us through it, as well as ADP (the payroll company we use), which will ensure that their portion(s) of ACA will be covered.

As a business man I should not be expected to wade through that nonsense. And I pity the smaller operations who cannot afford to pay consultants for some guidance.

And yes, titty twisting. Applying pain to force a compliance.

BurbGirl378
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

If that is your job, you may want to read the pertinent sections.

Link: AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

Titty Twisting?

edit on 12-10-2013 by BurbGirl378 because: Typo

I should point out: regulation of the kind seen here is not needed. I am paying more for less service. That's "regulation"?

Boncho, you have always been a voice of reason here.

It's actually funny how many Republicans are jumping on board with "Obamacare" as they realize that they would get better coverage and save them thousands of dollars a year. www.arktimes.com...

And Kentucky, hahahaha, wow Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell so funny. If the Republicans don't end this soon there won't be a vote left for them here. tv.msnbc.com...

Just two examples but there are thousands out there. The evidence is piling up.

Obamacare is the best thing to happen to the USA in a long time. The aggregate savings for small businessmen and families could usher in a new era of prosperity. If only the Republicans would accept that it's a good idea and work together instead of opposing it for purely ideological reasons.

Obamacare is Good for Small Business

The Business End of Obamacare

reply to post by TheComte


The primary thing that has me disagreeing with you is that the savings come in the form of tax credits.

When My wife and I lived at the poverty line, we would be lucky to have $20 to go take the kids for a burger once bills were paid. So no matter how much is rebated via tax credits, any premium would have caused us to make a choice. That choice would have been in the form of whether or not we could afford the insurance burden on our vehicle, or the insurance burden on our health. Or maybe we just go without air conditioning to keep the electricity bill down. It only gets to 110 degrees here in the summer.

But lets say I was able to figure out a budget that gets my insurance premium paid from month to month....I guess I could scrounge change together to pay the copay....but you see the problem....

What if something significant and of more critical import than this required insurance comes up, and I can't pay the premium? How will that effect my "fine"? And my ability to get back into the healthcare system?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


You have had over 3 years to get on board with this.
If your Premiums, Deductibles and Co-Pays are going up it's because you are being duped by the Corporate Elite who are still trying to extract their Million dollar salaries from the Health Care System, just for being Good Ol Boys.



No one is worth that kind of Salary. Every dollar they take is from Health Insurance Premiums paid by people who should be receiving health care and can't afford it. Then they scare the sh!t out of you by Wagging the Political Dog with issues like The Federal Budget, The Debt Ceiling, and "Entitlement Reform." Remember the Fiscal Cliff? How about the Sequester?

Social Security and Medicare ARE NOT ENTITLEMENTS. They are EARNED BENEFITS. You pay into them for years through FICA. Remove the income caps for contribution and the programs will remain solvent. Social Security and Medicare are in no way related to the Federal Budget Deficit or the Debt Ceiling. They are funded separately by employee/employer contribution. The Republicans just can't keep their hands off of other peoples money. They want to continue to raid the U.S. Treasury even further. Knock It Off.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


If I'm following you, you're saying that poor people will not be able to afford the premiums, and the tax credits don't kick in until income tax time? Is this correct?

I'm not an expert, but wouldn't the poor qualify for MedicAid? Obamacare expands this in most states and will be available for more people.

Then there is this and this. Two articles that shed some light on the situation of the uninsured poor.

Take Texas: the average increase of premium costs caused by uncompensated care for the uninsured in an employer-provided policy for a family was $1,551 in 2005. In Montana, $1,578. Alaska, $1,446. Idaho, $1,432. North Carolina, $1,130.

Now, there are other states where residents are paying more in added premiums—in excess of $1,700 for families in New Mexico, West Virginia, and Oklahoma—but I selected the first five states I mentioned to make a broader point. Each of those states is among those that have rejected an expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare that would be financed by the federal government. In other words, in some twisted, illogical idea of protecting their citizens, they are keeping their policy costs ­higher while simultaneously denying less-expensive medical care to people who are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid now.

TheComte
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Now, there are other states where residents are paying more in added premiums—in excess of $1,700 for families in New Mexico, West Virginia, and Oklahoma—but I selected the first five states I mentioned to make a broader point. Each of those states is among those that have rejected an expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare that would be financed by the federal government. In other words, in some twisted, illogical idea of protecting their citizens, they are keeping their policy costs ­higher while simultaneously denying less-expensive medical care to people who are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid now.

This "twisted, illogical idea" is typical Republican Hypocrisy. It is not based on the "Good Book" or the "Golden Rule" but rather on a narcissistic ideology that some are more deserving than others when it comes to basic human needs.

reply to post by BurbGirl378


Health insurance is not a "basic human need". That is where the rub is.

Health insurance is a gamble, like any other insurance. The issue is less about health insurance and more about affordable care.

In 2000, I would pay about $60 out of pocket for a doctor visit. Today, it is triple that. That far, far exceeds an annual 3% inflationary adjustment.

If the goal is to provide a basic level of health care to all people as a "human right", ACA has an interesting way of achieving that. If it can even really achieve it. Seems like we are running around the block 3 times just to get next door.

FDR not only wanted healthcare for all Americans but wanted to enact a second bill of rights.



It's shame he didn't.

I forgot about this speech by JFK.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

In 2000, I would pay about $60 out of pocket for a doctor visit. Today, it is triple that. That far, far exceeds an annual 3% inflationary adjustment.

This would be due to the doctors malpractice insurance. Insurance companies keep jacking rates up due to doctors who want to practice their trade while drunk or stoned. Limiting malpractice claims is one of the things that the TP had in their demands.

buster2010
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

In 2000, I would pay about $60 out of pocket for a doctor visit. Today, it is triple that. That far, far exceeds an annual 3% inflationary adjustment.

This would be due to the doctors malpractice insurance. Insurance companies keep jacking rates up due to doctors who want to practice their trade while drunk or stoned. Limiting malpractice claims is one of the things that the TP had in their demands.

Over simplified answers are not helpful. Malpractice insurance may have increased....but it hasn't been enough to explain the growth.

Have you considered the impact on our economy of all the cash exports that are done? Two examples that might help clarify:

- A Dr my wife worked for was raided right after 9/11. They made claims of child porn and coc aine. But that isn't what was up. He had been wiring 150k/month back home to Baluchistan (a Pakistani province). After 9/11 informed America of what the Taliban was, my wife mentioned that he had spoken favorably of them. She thought they were just a political party at the time.

- My current doctor, who my wife also has worked for, sends around 25k home each month to support his mom in India. He will also send out large parcels of cash to cousins who are being sponsored in the EB-5 programs, usually investing in hotels. This is how citizenship is bought.

Millions of dollars a month sent offshore by US businessmen and doctors to support family and political causes back home.

This is what your co-pay is going towards.

BurbGirl378
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

If that is your job, you may want to read the pertinent sections.

Link: AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

Titty Twisting?

edit on 12-10-2013 by BurbGirl378 because: Typo

Yes and now on MSM they are now telling the truth. Because of ACA 30 million more people are eligible for health insurance. Now the numbers are starting to roll in, 88 doctors for every 100,000 people and the nurses will take the roll of the doctors.

There are three main factors to rising medical costs. Lawyers, Insurance Companies and Government Spending Limits. I'll use simple math in examples.

Insurance will only pay so much for a procedure. Generally it is a percentage of what the charge is but there is also a table of fixed payouts. Thus the healthcare providers get what they want by charging more and then accepting what the payout is. For example an x-ray might be a flat $40 or 60% of charged rate. So the doctor/hospital charges $66.67 for an x-ray and takes the $40 with the balance written off for tax purposes or accepted if you pay the difference.

Insurance Companies profit by charging premiums to the customers at a rate of twice of expected payout. In other words, if you have 100 policy holders and expect to payout $1000/year to doctors/hospitals. Then the premiums are going to be $20 per year. $1000 profit from premiums to pay the company overhead. Part of that profit is invested into stocks and bonds for real profits. Insurance Companies also insure against malpractice suits. So portion of the doctor's income goes to hedge a bet against losing a lawsuit. Doctor charges you extra for that insurance, insurance companies pay for that extra cost, insurance companies charge you a higher premium for that extra cost.

Lawyers sue. They sue everything like puppies pee on everything. This drives up costs of malpractice. Which in turn drives up cost medical. Is higher premiums.

A Universal Health Care program doesn't change any of that. The Affordable Care Act doesn't change any of that. New prescriptions and medical devices add to the cost by paying for the R&D to develop these new things. The three main factors above is why an aspirin costs $10 a pill versus $5 for a bottle of 200 in the store. They charge $10 to get $2 dollars and use the balance to pay for other things or to write off on taxes as legitimate losses.

This is why tort reform was an issue in the ACA debates. By limiting payouts on lawsuits, it would curb malpractice insurance costs. This is also why the ACA was passed as mandatory insurance policies. By making young health adults pay for a service that they will not use, the cost of the premiums can be lowered by economy of scale. In my above example, 200 people paying for a $1000/year payout would make premiums $10 per year. And since insurance companies make their real profits in the stock market....the Federal Reserve can phase out Quantitate Easing to prop up Wall Street. Which btw, is eroding the dollar by inflation and contributing to rising healthcare costs by simple inflation.

Yes, I understand why ACA was important for the Fed, government and Wall St., but the immediate and long term effects on the individual are finically devastating. Especially considering that the ones whose wages can handle the cost of buying insurance already have insurance as part of their benefits with the employer paying part of the premiums. The uninsured ones that ACA was coming to help, don't have the wages to afford premiums even when partially subsidized by the government (taxpayers).

The economic impact on individuals is going to be like the impact that Cash for Clunkers had on used car prices. By removing otherwise mechanically sound cars from the market, the remaining used cars went way up in price to the point that many used car lots went out of business. By replacing discretional spending with insurance premium payments, you will see entertainment/restaurant businesses fold. As those workers lose their jobs, their discretionary spending goes with it and more businesses will fail. And all the while, you will hear just how good everything is because Wall St. will be trading at all time record highs....until the day comes when taxes must be raised due to the losses of jobs and the increased spending on social entitlements.