Originally Posted by Fedaykin
Quick quiz, what is my position about ACA?
More like. "I don't realize I need to plan (or can't), and when I don't I affect others".
When you have a group of people that, though action or inaction (or inability) are harming the whole, you don't think it's indicated for that whole to do something about it?
True in every aspect of life. But I've never heard it argued that someone should be forced to buy life insurance because if they die their family might become a burden on the rest of us.
I'm a pragmatist, not a ideologue. There are basically three choices:
1.) Let people suffer and die and have minimal up front costs.
2.) Keep people from suffering and dying at enormous cost -- what we currently do (only slightly mitigated by the ACA)
3.) Keep people from suffering and dying at a cost somewhere in between. -- what we should to be doing.
1. One of the main problems in health care is that people can often suffer and die with either minimal cost or extreme cost. Even at the end of the road, people will make vastly different end-of-life decisions based on whether a third party (say Medicare) is paying the bills, or whether they are.
2. ACA does absolutely nothing to mitigate cost. It works overtime to hide cost. Which is problem #1 with our health care system and the employer-based model today.
3. You're magic-bulleting this point. Yes, cost is pretty much THE problem. But that problem isn't getting solved by obfuscating payment. When the consumer consumes, he needs to CARE what it costs. The provider needs to know he cares what it costs.
Reinstating this cost-conscious relationship will drive costs down. And drive innovation at the same time.
Single payer can only fix prices and enforce quotas. Those are the only tools in its arsenal. It's one size-fits-all and yet still does little to motivate efficiency.