remember?)

The purpose of HCR was to reduce the rate of increase to the federal government. Not much was done to control the costs to the consumer. The White House specifically stated that they wanted to avoid changing most peoples health insurance AT ALL. And they also calculated that health CARE costs would continue to rise at roughly 7% for the foreseeable future.

and will continue to do so.

One of the things everyone is up in arms right now over is Preventable Maintenance in Health Care.. Using Contraception is a Preventative maintenance thing, same as pap smears and mamagrams. Many many things such as this are included in the Affordable Health Care Act and by using prevention many very very expensive things can be nipped in the bud early on...The Preventive Care part is a very major cost saver for the consumer and the Government as well..

with your argument.

It is just now being talked about as a requirement.. Why do you think there is such a fuss going on about having to provide Preventive Care? In fact there is still quite a bit that won't be fully enacted until 2014...It will tend to drive down costs though.. Maybe not as much as we all would like or if we had single payer but more than if nothing had been done at all.

savings: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002441094

Still, remember that the exchanges aren't up and running yet. That will help to reduce costs.

"False. Healthcare costs continue to rise much faster than both wages and inflation."

What the hell does that have to do with the exchanges, which aren't up and running until 2014?

And you know it.

Maybe you should call them up. Because apparently you are aware of savings that they are not. Costs are projected by the White House to CONTINUE to rise at 7% per year.

Despite another piece of propaganda you are pushing around, JUST saving SOME money on prescriptions doesn't lower the health CARE costs for seniors. They have alot more than just prescriptions and "some" tests. And it DOESN'T stop those costs from inflating at 7% per year.

-Homer Simpson or ProSense?

for you:

The Mighty Wurlitzer in Action
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/the-mighty-wurlitzer-in-action/

Do you not understand the distinction, because your responses make it seem like you don't.

But to your point, costs to consumers who have had to cover the costs of those who have chosen to be uninsured: $43 billion/year. (You don't think that hospitals don't pass that on to consumers, do you?)

What has happened to this board is that some people no longer engage in a meaningful discussion; rather, they assume their POV is correct, ridicule those who have a differing opinion, and fail to engage with the content of the post.

Many cannot afford insurance. Many can afford it, but choose not to pay for it. For those who cannot afford it, there are hardship exceptions, exceptions for those for whom the lowest cost health plan exceeds 8% of income, and there is medicaid expansion.

I don't think it is a good system; I've seen arguments of all stripes both in support and against. I expect single payer will ultimately win out, as it needs to. But meanwhile, though I take quite a hit paying for insurance, as a parent and a citizen I don't see another option.

But it is true. Many out there can afford insurance but have chosen to be uninsured. The world is bigger than your backyard.

cruel thing to say.

should pay higher rates for those that don't have health insurance? We all use medical services at some point in our lives - those that don't have the money or have not bothered to buy it, the cost ends up getting passed on in the form of higher costs to those that pay. I'm paying dearly for this private insurance option. Even single payer means we all pay the insurance costs...the cost being pegged to your income.

On edit: If we all want single payer, the easiest way to get it is for everyone to drop their private insurance.