Could not have said it better myself! Sounds like some of these youngsters don't like paying their fair share - as defined by liberals.

Or is it really not fair to have to pay for the medical costs for someone that smoked and now needs a lung transplant. Or pay for a liver transplant for a drunk. Or pay for a motorcyclists head injury that chose not to wear a helmet. Or pay for a driver that did not buckle-up and was ejected through the front windshield. Or pay for a slob that eats junk food all day. Or pay for a cliff diver that chose not to check for rocks just below the surface of the water he/she was diving in to. Or pay for the birth of a child that is not theirs. Or pay for a hip transplant for a 95 year old. I could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

It's no different than the gamble young, healthy people have been taking up to this point. In the end, the system will end up absorbing the costs and passing it on to you and me. Just like always ...

It's one thing to prescribe Healthcare for all. It's another thing altogether to make the real hard decisions to lock everyone in to make it work fairly. Of course, like everything else Liberals do, they lack the political courage to be completely Honest and Forthright when it might cost them $ support and Votes, such as leading their young supporters into believing the ACA would NOT be a financial negative for them.

No real surprise ...

I don't take that gamble - as a healthy, young person. Haven't been uninsured a day in my life. Child died after terminal illness, costing thousands and thousands in care. My big hope is we get to single payer in the short term.

Sorry for your loss. I cannot imagine ...

As for single payer ... Do you REALLY want the Government deciding your healthcare options for you? I know I don't. And can you just imagine the additional waste that would result from the loss of market-driven efficiencies and competition?

Yikes ...

For what it's worth though, a single payer system is exactly what this is leading to, what the ACA - in its purest form - was intended to precipitate, which is why a lot of people are vehemently opposed.

Right now, BCBS decides my healthcare options. I have no real recourse with them - I can't vote them out, for example. The government also decides my healthcare options, in the sense of FDA approval for drugs and treatments. My child couldn't access some, because BCBS didn't cover them or the FDA hadn't approved them. In more than 30 years, I will go on Medicare and the government will fund my healthcare then. It seems to me that versus BCBS deciding on my options, having the government administer is better. I can vote and influence their positions.

"Market driven efficiences." In a healthcare context, that sounds to me like "providing more for less, because you only have to compete with the other insurers." That sounds like deciding on fewer healthcare options. That sounds like limiting policy coverage and increasing deductibles. Like taking expensive prescriptions off the formulary.

But to pretend that I have a full array of options dictated only by my personal needs NOW is absolute balderdash. That's just not reality.

I'm not sure why you are "trapped" into BCBS. I have them also, but I can drop them during open season periods when my options open.

I think you oversimplify the market forces. They aren't simply about lower costs. They achieve lower costs through efficiencies, the kind of short-term tacking the Federal government is hardly able to do. Market forces also drive innovation, technology development, research (For profit obviously, but something you will never see Government truly motivated to pursue unless it's a neat weapon system or quasi-commercial venture, e.g. space exploration); even facilities upgrades, added conveniences, geared towards attracting more customers.

You will lose almost ALL of that when Government becomes your sole provider. You become truly trapped when that happens!

With insurance, market efficiencies rise most the higher the pool of healthy applicants. A universal pool will indeed capture the most market efficiencies. I think you have rose colored glasses about your corporate overlords, and you significantly overstate the effect of competition in the insurance industry. My experience is that there's been a consistent move AWAY from broader and cheaper coverage. It's those very markets that had brought us pre-existing condition carve outs, annual maximums, etc. You talk some great generalities, but that "efficiency" production in the pre-PPACA private health insurance industry was consistently anti-consumer.

Could you give me some specifics on how health insurance competition resulted in disadvantages to the consumer? I'm always looking to learn.

Did you see annual maximums and pre-existing conditions as consumer benefits?

No, but I doubt I will like reduced health research and longer waits as more patients enter and doctors flee the system.

I'm with you. Let's let people die for lack of access to care just to keep Mike's Shortall's wait time short. /sarcasm

Single payer is clearly the goal (or just giving Medicare to everyone), as it should be, and the Democrats were sadly just too scared to make it their opening offer. That a country of our wealth is the only major country not to do so is a travesty, and that we allow people to go bankrupt and lose homes over a confluence of a lost job/lost insurance/not having a job that provides insurance and major illness is something we should all be ashamed of.

There is not much I trust the gov't to do right - look at their record of incompetence and disregard for the value of my hard earned money. If you want single payer, then be prepared for extreme gov't intrusion into your life. It will all be "for the greater good" just like capping the size of soda in NY. Some people apparently enjoy these types of decisions - personally, those types of decisions make me sick to my stomach.

But if we go single payer, then I expect cigarettes to be illegal - salt should also be controlled - hockey helmets should be worn by everyone at all times to minimize head trauma - extreme sports should be illegal - prohibition should be brought back - vehicles should be governed to go no faster than 70 mph - no more King size candy bars - mandatory exercise programs programs should be implemented - etc. etc. etc - all for the greater good of society and the Utopia you are looking to create.

NY started with making my fries taste like crap because they cannot be cooked in trans fat and by limiting the size of soda - what is next?

Jeff: You over oversimplify when making your claim of the U.S. being the only "major country" not to provide a single-payer system.

Countries like Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Australia, Ireland, Israel provide either a two-tier system of coverage or simply mandate the purchase of insurance whether they be from a Government entity or private insurers.

Germany - for instance - has an insurance mandate for a lower-income "sick fund". But people over the income mandate have no insurance requirement and can decide to opt in to the "sick funds". The sick funds are not single-payer, and most Germans have supplemental private insurance.

Numerous countries with two-tier programs might offer basic healthcare provided by the Government. But most people, who can afford to pay, buy private insurance to supplement the basic coverage. That's far from being a "single-payer" system.

See the list here: http://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-by-date/

With a healthcare mandate, the U.S. is pretty much in line with MOST developed countries.

Well, PPACA does not - yet - make coverage available to everyone or force everyone to carry coverage. In theory, you are right that costs should go down when that occurs but in reality, I think we have an enormous problem with healthcare costs in general. Have you ever tried to call up a hospital and ask what a routine procedure is going to cost - frequently they can't or won't tell you. Would you get your car fixed without an estimate first? There have been news articles about charges of $16 for a single generic aspirin. I think the big thing we need is to force disclosure of fees and costs, because only with that information are we able to negotiate and control prices.

You are absolutely right about The Plan for a single-payer system from the very start!