Wow, can’t wrap my brain around that one. Nominations for Oxymoron Of The Year are now closed.
The costs are going to go down because of an influx of young healthy people buyng insurance, despite the creepy commercials showing a speculum-wielding Dirty Uncle Sam. Yes, wait times may increase at first until the market sorts out the new demand-driven dynamics. In the end, it’s going to work and it will soon be as unthinkable to dismantle Obamacare as it is Social Security.
Well, there is a *lot *of unmet demand, don’t we think?
So, the solution is to curtail supply until the demand literally dies off?
Um, no, I’m on the other side of this debate. That does mean, though, that I believe there a lot of people in need of health care who are currently not getting it. I was questioning Robot Arm’s apparent assumption that “and some portion of them are going to be sick at any given time” was a relatively fixed variable. If we had universal coverage, that would be an accurate assumption. Currently, when uncovered people become covered, demand will certainly rise. But perhaps I’m unnecessarily pointing out the obvious.
"The passage of the ACA doesn’t change the numbers of supply and demand. "
So I think is this incorrect, in the short run at least.
Yes, demand may well rise because people will seek medical attention earlier, when medical attention is more likely to be effective. Rather than wait for the condition to worse, in which case they will require a lot more medical attention.
“The cost/benefit ratio of prevention as compared to curative procedures is a positive value”
Back when I worked for the Evil Insurance Industry the actuaries had all sorts of statistics on how whenever coverage expanded in a market, for whatever reason, there was always an initial uptick as people “caught up” with routine care and the long-neglected problems. Just getting people up to date on vaccinations and routine screenings, even if nothing expensive was found, would cause a detectable uptick.
So yeah, initially, there will be a demand bump. But hopefully it will be taking place in the doc’s office during scheduled visits rather than in the ER as actual emergencies.
So now that the government is shut down, who won?
The bears who live in National Parks? Or do they go hungry for lack of trash? 
TBD. But the smart moneys on Boehner losing, then the Republican Party.
Today’s Google Doodle celebrates the 123rd anniversary of Yosemite National Park.
That depends entirely on who can eventually control the messaging that the electorate will believe.
Right now, the Tea Party Republicans and their media are out in full force, trying to convince everyone that “Obama won’t negotiate in good faith”, and “This is all Obama’s fault” Along with the message that “89.43% of the public don’t want Obamacare” (and other such made up nonsense)
These are the message theys are desperately trying to push. If lots of people buy into them, the Tea Party Republicans win. If they do not, they lose.
People already associate shutting down the government with Republicans, it will be very hard to change that. Specially when several leading republicans already came out against their party shutting down the government the past few weeks.
Republicans get the blame for being idiots.
And they, particularly the Tea Party members, totally deserve it
So how do you feel now, with the government shut down and many Republican lawmakers, including Rand Paul, questioning whether defaulting will even be a bad thing?
Hmm, why d’ya s’pose that is, huh?