Lang, was mr sheen your data set?
Average medical costs are going to go up. That's what happens when we decide to actually allow chronically sick to receive health care. It costs money to put air bags and seatbelts in cars, but total cost isn't everything. You are better insured without health insurance under the ACA (just through the assurance that you can get insurance after you get sick) than you were with a typical policy before.
You're also going to pay more if you're a young, healthy male. You're now expected to share the cost of reproductive healthcare. I already stated the logic of this and gave my support.
Currently, the law is a framework with good intention and many obvious flaws. For example, why do we need a national website when you're only allowed to choose amongst in state insurers? Why not hire multiple companies, state by state, to set up websites? The companies that fuck up can be fired and replaced by those that successfully met their goals.
Overconsumption of healthcare is a product of over insuring a population, but the problem isn't checkups, medical implants, or drugs. People don't run out to get a pacemaker just because they're free; demand is hard capped at the actual medical needs of our population. The overconsumption problem is about unnecessary diagnostic tests. When they're free for the patient, doctors insist that more data is always better, primarily because it covers the doctors ass in court. Tort reform would greatly reduce unnecessary testing. Additionally, insurance under Obamacare doesn't make stuff free, and consumers still have a reasonable financial motive for not buying unnecessary healthcare. Republican arguments otherwise are pure fear mongering.
|