You can say we're already paying for the uninsured, but the uninsured cost the public $43 billion in 2008. (75% of $57 billion) Obamacare is projected to cost $100 billion a year.
...
The reason health care costs are going up is because there is nothing in place to check the cost. The entities in health care are all basically monopolies. The system is NOT about price competition. The AMA, the ABA, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and insurance companies are all basically monopolies who negotiate prices among themselves. Pharmaceutical companies have been caught colluding on prices.
There is absolutely NO chance of this bill having a stabilizing effect on healthcare costs. If anything it will have the opposite effect. You talk about insurance provider profit caps, but that is only one of many factors involved in healthcare costs, many of which aren't addressed by this bill and some of which are exacerbated by it.
I really wanted to gather some information before I responded because I want to make sure I can offer an informative and respective rebuttal. In that effort, I'd ask you to cite sources for your figures above. I'd be interested to know how your source arrived at those numbers.
Also - Calling the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act "Obamacare" is engaging in a bit of punditry and is also inaccurate.
And now that there is a provision to help ensure that we are not overpaying for it, there's really no incentive not to have it. But, for whatever reason, you can choose not to get it and pay the "tax".
If you add all of that together you get -
1) millions of new health insurance customers
2) income collected by the gov from the can-afford-it-but-for-some-reason-chose-not-to-get-it folks
3) a cap on insurance provider profits
All of which SHOULD have a stabling effect on the completely unchecked (as you yourself claimed, VTscores, and I would whole-heartedly agree) costs of healthcare.
Who cares what else Rothbard wrote... a lot of THAT article was very good. And THAT article didn't say, nor would I agree, that there shouldn't be insurance at all. I have no idea where you're coming from there... Did Rothbard say that elsewhere? Why exactly are you bringing it up?
You said "You can't put a value on health. Economics shouldn't even enter the picture." Seriously? Denying that economics should be in the picture is akin to denying that gravity should enter the picture in engineering. You can't just ignore one of the key actors on the system... I'm sure we'd all love to be able to ignore the economic factors here, but we can't. They are factors. What happens when you ignore a factor in your design? Bad, bad things...
No comprehensive answer to the purpose of government? We're really going off topic to get to that question, but ok... this one's pretty simple. To protect the people it governs. Or as Thomas Jefferson said, "The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors."
Putting limits on insurance company profits falls far short of stabilizing or controlling health care costs. You still have an unaccountable industry, only now it's mandatory that everyone fund it. There is no cost transparency anywhere. In fact the latest craze in the industry is to hire professional coders who can maximize profits. It's all how you game the system.
You couldn't shop for health care by price today if you wanted to, because all the prices are essentially "made up" for maximum benefit to the health care entities.
Its all "let's make a deal".
Nothing about the ACA makes health care any more affordable for anyone other than half of the 15% of the uninsured who will get subsidized care, at the expense of the other half, who will be subsidizing that care.
Stop with the "affordable" propaganda, because it just ain't so.
It's the name of the law. I'm not promoting anything. Besides, it's passed and it's been upheld by the Supreme Court. I'm just trying to understand why there are so many people who think it will a disaster. I never said, nor would I ever argue, that it's a cure all, but I do believe it's better than doing nothing at all.
Besides, what additional obligation will you have from the implementation of this law? Do you make more then $200K annually? Do you run a tanning salon? Can you afford health insurance, but you choose not to have it? If the answer is no, it won't cost you anything more than what you're already paying in taxes.
I'm not at all convinced it was "better than doing nothing at all". An opportunity to actually reform the system was wasted. Certainly, 30 million more people will now have health insurance. Some of which will be subsidized, and some of whom will be subsidizing care for someone else.
The additional obligations will be:
1) to the taxpayer who is essentially guaranteeing this bill. In spite of what the CBO is currently saying, this bill WILL cost money to the taxpayer. The only thing the CBO does is check bills based on the assumptions provided. Faulty assumptions = faulty conclusions.
2) to anyone paying an insurance premium. Premiums will continue to rise, and part of this will be due to Obama's changes to the system. We will be paying for contraception for Georgetown law students who weren't covered before. Joe Blue Collar worker will now be subsidizing Suzy law student. E
But the biggest issue is that this is an opportunity wasted to get to the bottom of the cost structure. The health industry managed to dodge that bullet. I see two ways to bring the costs down 1) make the costs transparent and introduce consumer choice, or 2) create a single payer system, where the government controls the costs.
The health industry isn't too upset now, because they can just lobby for whatever they want. No consumer choice is involved, and Congress has no backbone.
The cost of health care has increased from 7.2% of GDP in 1970, to 16.2% of GDP in 2007. Health care costs have exceeded economic growth in every recent decade.
If you don't somehow control the costs, this is a futile game. Sorry, but someone is going to have to pull the plug on excessive health care profits, and I'm NOT just talking about insurance company profits.