I hope all you young, healthy readers are super stoked that you will now be required to buy insurance or pay a minimum fine of $695. But young people are rich right? Have fun subsidizing Grandpa's medication morons!

I'm a young healthy reader, and damn right I'll be happy that people will be required to buy (heavily subsidized) insurance, which expands the risk pool, saves lives through access to regular preventative care and makes insurance cheaper and better for everybody. Do you know how the concept of insurance works, dumbass? Have fun living in a healthier country and not subsidizing insurance company CEO blowjobs and our current system of Emergency Room/Bankruptcy/Funeral Home health care despite your insane, illogical ideology!

I'm a young person that is not rich and I'm very excited about this bill. Yes, I will be required to buy health insurance and be partially subsidizing older and/or sicker people. But I will be purchasing real insurance with no life-time limits, no massive out-of-pocket costs, and no "rescission" when I get sick or injured. And there will be significant subsidies to help me pay for it. And by the way "Barfolomew," young people get sick, sometimes very sick. I know that's a newsflash for you. But I am glad you'll have solid insurance if you get cancer like two of my "young people" friends.

Explain to me how expanding the risk pool will reduce insurance cost? Years ago I racked up 5 or 6 traffic tickets within a 2 year period. My car insurance sky rocketed. They viewed me as a high risk driver, more likely to get in an accident. Now that health insurers will be required to include everyone, including the obese, diabetic, smoker, you're telling me cost are going to go down? I may not know the complexities of the insurance industry, but I do understand the concept of risk. Do you honestly believe this bill will cost what they say it will, and that people will be healthier? HAHAHAHAHA.

Barfolomew, actually you do not understand the concept of risk as it applies to the heath care arena. The answer to your question is simple. We already cover the uninsured: "obese, diabetic, smoker" or otherwise. But we do it in the most expensive way possible -- through emergency care when a diabetic goes into shock, when an obese person has a heart attack, etc. It is MUCH less expensive to treat people from the beginning with medicine, appropriate tests, professional advice, and consistent follow up from a doctor, nurse, or medical assistant. You will not find a serious economist who believes you can bring down insurance costs without requiring coverage for everyone. Please do a little research at the Kaiser Family Foundation website, Lewin Group website, or Congressional Budget Office website before you post your next rant.

@IndiePdx and @Later - There seems to be an assumption in your statements above that giving coverage to the uninsured will make them healthier. You're saying that overall costs will go down because of the savings from preventative medicine instead of emergency room care, right?

That seems to contradict with how I think about people, though. I will personally bet you $20 (ooh!) that emergency room visits will NOT go down in 2014. Just because an obese glutton gets a free doctors visit doesn't mean he's going to take that doctors advice - he will still end up in the emergency room, baffled. I have a hard time believing that there will be any real savings from preventative care.

Allopathic medicine in America? What a joke. The leading cause of death in this country is from medical mishaps.. misdiagnosis, doctor error, shoddy treatment methodology, etc.. so now we're going to be forced to pay for something that is not only failing to heal us but is killing us off en masse? No thanks, I'll stick to acupuncture, yoga and eating healthy. I don't ever get sick for the most part because I take good care of myself. If I get badly injured or sick enough to warrant a trip to the hospital, I'll just have to deal with it, but that would be the only reason I would go to a western doctor.

Hey- does anyone know if this thing covers dental care?

Reymont,
It has nothing to do with preventative care. The cost of insurance should go down even more if (and especially if) the newly insured don't utilize any health care services at all. And because a large portion of the uninsured are relatively young and relatively healthy, they are less likely to utilize very much medical care, preventative or otherwise. This means that the insurance companies will be receiving a bunch of additional premiums from a bunch of young, healthy people who will not be incurring as much in medical bills as they pay in premiums. The idea is that those excess premiums will exceed the additional cost of medical care for the sick people who didn't used to have insurance who the insurance company has to take on.

Long story short, if more young and healthy people join a risk pool, it decreases the overall risk. Most of the currently uninsured are relatively young. And if you believe in efficiencies and the free market, that should lower the cost of being insured for everybody.

I'm sure you've all heard this from the conservative relative that you hate, but in 1966 the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion dollars (adjusted for inflation) by 1990. By the time 1990 rolled around Medicare had cost $107 billion. So they were just a little bit off. It is hard for me to put any faith in what the CBO says will happen in the next 10 years given the record of the federal governments 'estimates'. Yet you, for some reason I cannot fathom, put your complete trust in them. IndiePDX - an independent you are not.

@Reymont - I'm going to guess you don't work in the health care industry. Everyone who does doesn't guess but *knows* that it does in fact reduce emergency care and catastrophic illness when you receive on-time preventive care.

Your "obese glutton" straw man notwithstanding, these things aren't guesses. They're backed up by research. Years and years of research into the question. You know? Instead of someone just crapping out their opinion on the internet with no basis other than their own biases.

@boondoggle - You're spouting the healthcare mis-information I hate the most. I would like to know how your yoga and acupuncture will help you if you get cancer? (the answer is, it won't). Healthcare is like a lawyer. It's easy to dismiss it/them until you really need it/them. That wasn't very eloquent but I think you get the point. I don't think you'll be calling your acupuncturist when you develop chest pains in the middle of the night.

That's great if you want to take care of yourself in a holistic way. Good on ya. But you're either dumb or disingenuous when you say that : "The leading cause of death in this country is from medical mishaps.. misdiagnosis, doctor error, shoddy treatment methodology, etc..". It takes a simple Google search to find out that that isn't true.

pork chop: The bill does not deal directly with dental insurance.

@Ted - Thanks for the explanation. That makes more sense to me, now - seems logical. Well written.

@Kiala - You're right, I am biased - I have very little faith in people. In my experience - just another way of saying 'in my ignorant opinion,' I know - many of the people who currently don't have insurance also don't take good care of themselves, and it's easy to believe they will continue to take poor care of themselves even if we who do pay to provide them with free nagging from doctors.

You sound like you may have better information than I do. Can you you provide the research you mentioned? I'm curious if the studies focused on people who sought out preventative care because they wanted it, or if it included these masses who may not particularly want to change their habits.

My core statement was that the preventative coverage funded by this bill will not result in an overall decrease in emergency room visits or expenses. Does the research you say you have prove I'm wrong? Don't get me wrong - it'd be awesome to be wrong. (again!)

@Kiala - And I would hardly call the idea of an "obese glutton" in America a 'straw man' argument. I work in a cubicle farm, and I could hit a dozen with a pencil without standing up. I'm sure you've been to a McDonalds or Wal-Mart at least once. Do you think they don't already know their lifestyle is unhealthy? Or that a free consultation with a doctor is suddenly going to make them rethink their diet and exercise choices, and keep them out of the emergency rooms?

What percentage of emergency room visits are accidents, and therefore non-preventable, anyway? The idea that we'll see massive savings from decreased emergencies because of the availability of preventative care just seems airheaded. Would be nice, sure...but so would unicorns....

Dammit, sorry - kept saying @Kiala, and it should have been @Sarahfina. Now I wonder what other key points I missed...

@ Sarahfina - It takes a simple Google search to support just about any viewpoint so consider me unconvinced by your attempt to set me straight. You gripe about misinformation but then try to act like Google is some kind of infallible source? Come on. You accusing me of being dumb or disingenuous is ironic.

I don't agree with your assertion that cancer wont be helped by acupuncture or yoga. I'm not saying those things on their own will cure cancer, but I do believe they will go a long way toward a successful recovery. Not to mention the overwhelming preventative benefit that they offer. If I got cancer (which I wont), I would probably get ayurvedic treatment (which has been effectively treating cancer for quite some time, I dare you to prove me wrong) or possibly the Hoxey treatment, or one of the myriad other treatments out there not pushed by big pharma. I never said that allopathic medicine doesn't have a place but I don't think it is viable for many issues.

@Barfolumew -- Your car insurance analogy is asinine. Making idiots who rack up moving violations pay more for their car insurance IS NOT THE SAME as providing a means of care and financial protection for someone who contracts, say, breast cancer through no fault of their own (or maybe the fault of toxins at their work or community? But you'd be against the government regulating that too, so nevermind). @Ted and @IndiePDX do a pretty good job of explaining how health insurance needs to work for you, so I won't repeat them. As for the cost, did your party pay up front for the two wars and tax cuts for the wealthy it rammed through Congress when Bush was in charge? NO. Will we be paying TRILLIONS of dollars in the future for veterans with PTSD and artificial limbs, and the rebuilding of two nations we destroyed, to name a few of the hidden costs of said actions? YES. That's your legacy. Obama and the Democrats just made health insurance possible for 30+ million people. We'll let history decide who was right. Douche.

@Cereal_kidd - Enough with the insults, kidd. And his analogy is an accurate match. They are both insurance policies against accidents - the relationship between costs ands and risks is similar in both cases.

He was NOT talking about any moral duty to provide free health care. The argument he was refuting was the idea that 'costs will go down because we have increased the risk pool,' and I think Ted cleared up the confusion, there.

I think you believe that everyone deserves health care regardless of the cost. That's totally understandable, but your emotion doesn't invalidate his logic. You have a good point - but it's a completely different point, and doesn't counter his accounting.

@Reymont - Instead of just acting like I know everything, I will try to point you to some good research. I do work in the health care industry, conducting research in fact - with cancer patients - and plenty of good research about preventative care is used in our clinics. I will ask the doctors I work with which studies are best to point someone towards. Should be a couple days.

@boodoggle - It seems pointless to reply to someone who uses the term "big pharma" (as if that is the only entity who conducts research) and to someone who seems certain that cancer won't happen to them. Logic doesn't seem like your strong suit so we'll just leave you railing against "big pharma" and hanging out with your acupuncturist. I'm sure you light up everyone's life, wherever you go.

@boondoggle - One more thing: Recent studies show that more than 100,000 people die every year in American due to the lack of preventative care like flu shots, etc. I guess that's their fault for not signing up for yoga classes instead, right?

@ Sarahfina - Well, I will say that you have certainly lightened up my life a great deal with your assumptions and passive aggressive attempts to simultaneously insult and enlighten me. Success is yours!

Creating a captive market out of an entire nation by mandating product purchases that funnel money directly into private for-profit companies under the threat of fines (and possibly jail time) sure is progressive!

Keep on cheering this idiotic blunder, Obamabots. While you stay locked in the "our team/their team" political dichotomy, the real leftists who fought for real UHC will continue to fight. Every other first-world nation has successfully implemented UHC. This bill (now law) is just an easier way to funnel more and more money into insurance industry coffers.

To quote commenter "cereal_kidd" about "subsidizing insurance company CEO blowjobs" -- what you are cheering does *exactly this*.

Reagan would be proud.

@prefer- So how are those Cheroke hair tampons working out for you?