As expected. The more government manipulated market affordability goes down, where as the free market like affordability goes up.

“Conclusion: remind me why socialism is so great again.”

http://www.aei.org/publication/the-ch...

I believe this works every time, everywhere and I think it is the answer to my questions.

Ban health insurance and the costs will plummet as only the people who are sick will be willing to pay and demand for services will drop by 80%.
(Disclosure: Speculation unsupported by scientific study.)

There are those that are privileged to get a much lower cost, at the expense of the less privileged. These privileged ones will then be expected to vote Democrat because of their identity.

Also, usefull idiots activists usually make terrible doctors.

Health insurance is not the same thing as health care.
Health insurance in its current state does little but cause the cost of health care to increase geometrically.
The biggest beneficiaries of the Un-Affordable Care Act are health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and government.
The patients get nothing but higher costs for health care.

Doctor shortages end up with results similar to not being covered by insurance. Rationing inevitable by waiting or not having money to pay for service. The med schools limit applicants and so doctor shortages are guaranteed, as well they are going to be paid top dollar for their being a shortage. Else make veterinarians doctors too. Hell they have to learn the workings of more than one species and human docs only one.

Those arbitrations would most likely be after the fact of exstream side effects with illnesses and deaths. Even with the long process to introduce a new drug, there are always side effects at least for some. I use amiodarone to fix my 45% PVCs. Works fine but was first placed on the market until very severe side effects showed up, so taken off the market. Then years later, was introduced again to stop deaths from life threatening arrhythmia. So needs great care in use. Now that is with strict testing and of course a great cost. Since a free market in the drug usage would operate as does the supplement industry where people are harmed as they were harmed before the FDA and in few cases is there redress in law for harm, all I see is another kind of harm in a free market for drugs. Law of course being force.
I almost became an electrical engineer but due to exstream social anxiety I chose chemistry and math because the electrical engineer course had a speech course and chemistry had a senior seminar where just one speech was required. Then because the government pestered me with there registration program for chemists, I went into the lawn care business where I had four months (winter here in southern WI starts the last part of November and cleanups, grass mowing, plantings,etc.in March) a year to work on some old math conjectures.

I spent most of my career as an electrical engineer and in construction. I always found UL and Factory Mutual to be professional and the best arbitrators for product safety. There were government agencies also but they were always looking for payoffs.

If there was free market demand for the service to be profitable, I would expect the service to be provided voluntarily in a free market.

Would also, since medications are part of health care, mean the end of the FDA. Would something like Underwriters Lab spring up to replace it?

Sounds like a free market solution.

Demanding that insurance companies provide for pre-existing conditions makes no sense whatever. But when I worked for a certain restaurant chain, after a while, I got insurance, though I had not opted for it originally. Since I had been found to have epilepsy before I got the insurance, naturally the insurance would not cover it; except that the insurance had a rule that they would start covering it after I had paid into it for a certain length of time. (I think there had to be no seizures during that time). So that worked well enough. But that was a long time ago, and I believe that there was no one forcing them to do it.---Not that I knew about, anyway.

Close examination of the healthcare law will reveal that the intention is not to provide health care but to provide an income stream (taxation) into the government. The bureaucrats who try to make it function will prove that no matter what they do it will only become more complicated and inefficient and obscures the original design.
There is a new 3% tax on all real estate sales to 'pay' for the ACA. There is a tax on all medical appliances. My premium went up 10 times and my deductible went up 100 times and the new rule that the deductible applies for every new instance (if your original healthcare provider recommends you to see a specialist the deductible starts over) it is unlikely that you will get the ACA to pay for much of any procedure.
If you have a pre-existing condition no employer will give you more than 29 hours per week nor more than 1400 hours per year to avoid having to pay for your premium which means you will have to work at least two jobs to pay for being seriously ill while you try to recover.
Dishonest market insurance companies would love this income stream with the corresponding failure to pay scheme.
The assumption here is also that without insurance no one could afford healthcare which reminds me of the case of a doctor in Sacramento that refused to use the state funds and insurance and was able to drop his prices by 90% and still made more income. Even poor people could afford his services. His fellow doctors complained and to avoid having his license revoked (which would mean no income) he was forced by the state back into the socialist system and his prices rose accordingly.
There would be market insurance that could provide pooled resources to give those unable to save enough to be part of a service to gain expensive healthcare. The idea that insurance companies should provide for existing conditions is the same as requiring home insurance companies to provide fire insurance after your house caught on fire and the individual was motivated to buy the insurance.

Because, when it comes to the fact that in the case of humans, one size never fits all a universal health care is not possible, only custom designed policies can be designed to suit individuals. However, in order to be comprehensive the cost would be enormous if the provider hoped to make a profit. Unless health care becomes a universal private charity.
It is the ancient question of: "What happens when an irrisistable object meets an immovable post.

Remember, Obamacare was the result of a joint effort by the insurance companies and the government, and included lots of insurance company ideas. See how well that turned out?

A better idea is to restore the doctor/patient relationship with Direct Primary Care (DPC). With DPC, the patient pays a subscriber fee to a doctors group, with no insurer of government agency involved. The fee covers physicals, immunizations, minor outpatient surgery. Prescriptions are at the doctors' cost, and the prices are often less than the copays under insurance programs.

Subscriber costs are much lower than medical insurance. As little as $50/month for adults, and $10/month for minors. You can find the nearest DPC provider here: https://www.dpcfrontier.com/mapper/ .

DPC providers usually recommend subscribers get catastrophic care insurance, a low cost program to cover emergency care, hospital costs, and long term care. They also don't turn away people with preexisting conditions.

There are also surgery centers that post cash prices, and deal with only individuals and self insured companies, no insurance companies or government involved. You can find some here: https://aapsonline.org/surgery-center... .

Well said.

govt health care is a violation of the 9th amendment...right not be responsible for the health of 300+ million individuals....

The real solution last successfully occurred in 1776.

It started with the monopolization of the healthcare provider into the licensed physician.

They got the power to make us need 'prescriptions' in order to get any drugs. And any drugs had to be approved by FDA before sale.

Then it took over medical devices so we needed prescriptions for them and they all had to be pre approved by the FDA

Then they forced us all to have some sort of insurance, whether it be employer based, obamacare, or medicaid.

Now they are trying to regulare nutritional supplements as they do regular prescription drugs. I am sure prescriptions will be required for those soon.

All of it was designed to make us go to the "system" in order to get any healthcare at all.

All I think that is needed is REPEAL of the Obamacare law, removal of the powers of the FDA to require their approval before sale (they can approve them if they want, but I could buy the unapproved ones anyway if I wanted), and removal of the monopoly of physicians. Then we could start to see better healthcare.

If the government got out of health care entirely, it would require the following:
1) rescinding laws requiring healthcare providers and hospitals to treat anyone entering their emergency rooms.
2) rescinding laws requiring that healthcare insurers register with the individual States in which they seek customers
3) repeal Medicare, Medicaid and the ACA. Also SS Disability.
4) repeal HIPPA

It would also mean that:
1) Individuals would not be subsidized by taxpayers, and therefore would have to make better choices about their health and their healthcare
2) Individuals would be free to purchase healthcare insurance or not, as they see fit

What we would likely see:
1) A la carte programs from insurers allowing individuals to select plans that better meet their needs without breaking their wallets covering inapplicable things (maternity for men, etc.)
2) Innovation in insurance such as splitting it into basic maintenance care and catastrophic coverage such as for cancer.
3) Doctors who actually competed based on price for their services.
4) Patient information being controlled by patients and shared with doctors as appropriate
5) Doctors spending more time with patients rather than on paperwork.
6) Reform in medical malpractice, as doctors could refuse service to patients they deemed to be high-risk

Is anything likely to happen short of a full-scale meltdown on the part of the Federal Government? Unfortunately no. Especially since the Democrats don't want to give up the power they've acquired by controlling peoples' lives.

Insurance companies and healthcare providers want forced participation, unlimited abilty to charge premiums and service fees, with the money paid for by government. Its crooked as the day is long, and Obama knew this and suckered them in to get Obamacare passed. Obama knew the plans would not work, and eventually it would be medicaid for everyone (not medicare..) with the end of the insurance companies.

For me the first step is to get rid of the 501(c)3 and 501(c)6 status of hospitals. Have them "for profit" and the freeloaders in the ER will go bye bye.

If the gov't completely withdrew, there wouldn't be that much for the President, Congress, and CEOs to do on this issue. Amazingly, problems that seem intractable would disappear. Drug stores would start offering more services. People would be free to take their chances and just get the same meds they always take or decide what level of expert they need to consult for a "med check". There would be no prescriptions.

There have been health sharing ministries run by religions for decades. In these programs, members agree to contribute a monthly donation and optionally send get well cards to people who are making claims and to send sympathy cards to bereaved families. There are levels of contributions that correspond to levels of payment you'll receive if you get sick. I can imagine secular versions of this cropping up.

That's just one idea. All kinds of telemedicine technologies are being developed, and they would come faster with more freedom.

Most people now use insurance that attempts to manage even small routine healthcare expenses. Neither the patient nor the provider have any way to know or reason to care what the price is. This is a disastrous way to run a market.

If gov't just got out of it, including regulating prescriptions, addictive drugs, and everything, there would be some problems. There would be some people taken in by patent medicine. There would be some people who make a mistake and don't get treatment. But all that happens now. Pharmacies now sell homeopathic meds, really just inert ingredients, along side scientifically validated medicines.

I really think if the gov't backed out of it in a controlled way, in less than 10 years it would be way better than it is today.

BTW, I tought PPACA was a mixed bag. I still do. I think it fixed something things. But it's done its job of increasing use of insurance for small things, and I think that's very bad. My opinion of it has decreased.

True. I'm not sure why I got a down point for saying the same thing in a different way. Was it because I mentioned there is an alternative? Did I piss off some secret looter somewhere? Not that I really care.