The sharing of risk across a larger population isn't going to be lowering premiums for ACA. Most companies have enough members already such that adding more will not cause them to lower their margins. The main reason to pool everyone together is that you get healthy people into the pool as well as the sick ones, lowering the overall cost of insurance.

The lowest premiums occur in the individual market as it is today due to individual medical underwriting. People currently in this market will undoubtedly face higher premiums in the next three years. The infusion of the currently uninsured healthy people due to the mandate will not be enough to offset the guaranteed issue provision. The ACA does what it does because the people that wrote it find it unacceptable that there are people who are unable to obtain health insurance. I happen to agree, but let's not pretend that costs are going to go down for everyone.

It is a good thing for insurers. It's not a good thing for the unhealthy people. That's the whole point. The ACA is intended to allow/require EVERYONE to get health insurance.

These two things aren't really related.

The 85% rule is intended to force insurers to lower admin costs and possibly take smaller profits. This has nothing to do with differences in rates charged to individual people.

Right. But having insurance companies at all when covering everyone is really stupid. Which conservatives love to point out until they realize where the discussion is headed.

Is it though?

Agreed, I definitely don't expect costs to go down for everyone (or hardly anyone).

FYP

Yes? That is the whole point.

Rich people have money, poor people have numbers. Society has been a balance between those two ever since the Magna Carta.

Yes, the same people that want available healthcare for everyone also realized its not reasonable for someone making 15k per year to spend 3k or more on healthcare.

So instead we only give you healthcare if you make nothing, but punish you if you have a low paying job. USA STATUS QUO FOREVER!

Is it really so hard for conservatives to understand that we already have universal health care, and are providing it in the most inefficient, costly possible manner? I personally have posted that fact, oh, 100 times in various threads on this forum yet we keep going in circles.

lol thats laughably and obviously untrue if you knew anything about how ERs work

Feel free to present evidence, make an actual argument, or do anything other than the lol ikes dynamite drop in.

What evidence or argument do you need? It's not like you're making much of an argument at all either.

ERs don't provide comprehensive care. They stabilize, investigate, maybe begin treatment and then either turf or discharge. Furthermore, they most definitely are not required to treat you if you do not have a serious condition. If you walk into an ER with 'I got a lump in breast' they're going to boot you out so fast for all of the work that would actually need to be done.

There's a lot of ways you could possibly describe the US health care system, actually universal, presumably because you can walk into an ER at any time, simply isn't one of them.

We universally will do the really expensive stuff, but not the cheaper preventative care, amazing setup we have!

call Guinness. ikes is right here. ERs definitely do not equal "universal care delivered really inefficiently"

At some point on the timeline from "beginning ailment" and "death", you will hit the threshold of getting to use the ER. The disadvantage of the ER->bankruptcy system is that care is not given at the earlier, cheaper stages.

Oh ike, lol as always. Of course we don't have universal care in the sense that not everybody can get any level of care, tons of people with perfectly fine health insurance can't see doctors they want to see or get treatments they want, and sometimes die without getting life saving treatment.

The point is that we, collectively, already spend a **** ton of money treating the uninsured, so ZOMG NEW ENTITLEMENT BANKRUPTCY IMMINENT SOCIALISM GREECE DEATH PANELS is pretty ridiculous. It is entirely possible that in providing more comprehensive care to those currently uninsured aggregate per capita costs will rise. But that will be a reflection of higher quality care. Things could potentially be even more efficient if we just nationalized health care like every other industrialized nation, but alas one political party has no interest in actually finding solutions to the health care crisis.

Right, it's my fault that you suck at writing. My bad, you could see how I'd be confused by:
and

My bad.

Literally nobody alive anywhere thinks universal care means everybody gets whatever care they want. But nice job making a stupid semantic distinction in an effort to obscure your core wrongness.

literally no one but you thinks er care ~= universal care.

Lol semantikes, come on, did you really not know what Riverman was saying?

I'm not the one making a semantic argument at all.

Whats amazing about ikestoys is that he never gets better at arguing.