Finally got my Health Insurance. The Affordable Care Act isn't that good.

[grantcart]

185. Perhaps the most ignorant statement ever made on the subject.

There is "pent up demand". That means that there isn't increased demand but existing demand that the market wasn't able to satisfy but is now going to be met with an artificial amount coming in a short time.

Obviously over time that will even out.

What is so alarmingly ignorant about your right wing POV is that you have swallowed the talking points down whole undigested. You assume that because there are profit making entities involved that it qualifies as a market and capitalist system.

That is not the case.

In the current situation the market place is negated because consumer (patients) and providers (health care professionals) cannot meet in the market place because there is an artificial body (insurance companies) between them.

To make this clearer to you currently everyone would agree that the airline industry is a highly competitive market in a capitalist system. I recently flew from San Diego to Portland for the ridiculously low price of $ 75.

But the airlines don't own the airports. Cooperative publicly owned entities own the airports. The airlines don't establish the rules, The federal government determines safety standards, pilot qualifications and so on.

In fact the airline industry is, at the same time, one of the most competitive market industries and one of the most regulated. Its the regulations that create a clear and accessible foundation for profit making companies to compete.

In the same way the Canadian system is much more capitalistic than ours because any consumer can go to any doctor at any time. The health care providers compete without obstacle directly in the market.

Before Obamacare our system was closest to a Mercantile system, not a capitalist system.

Now a giant platform has been created and 800 doctors will be able to compete for my business without the insurance company in the way.

Health care is not like other markets because the need isn't determined by wealth or desire to own an object but the need to maintain basic health.

Therefore your observations that their is substantial unmet needs that the market hasn't been addressing doesn't make economic sense, it shows that the structures in place have not brought consumers and providers together but keeping them apart.

Beyond that your position has an absolute appalling lack of a moral center. We aren't talking about purchasing a second car but sustaining people's health.

In the 'marketplace of idea' all political parties in established democracies through out the developed world have universally rejected your economic theory (as faulty as it is) on basic moral grounds. In this thread 4 years ago I went through all of the political parties in all of the developed counties and in the market place of ideas your Republican mumbo jumbo has been rejected by all.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/188

The Canadian Conservative Party wants to expand their universal single payer system, not replace it.

http://www.conservative.ca/?page_id=1412

Beyond the fact that you 1) mistakenly think that we have a working market system for health care providers and consumers and 2) advocate a position that has been rejected as morally bankrupt by the entire Western civilization there are other significant problems.

Currently the law is if someone goes to a hospital they are required to treat. The costs for 'indigent' care is then passed on through inflated charges to those that have insurance. Again this is not a true market situation but one that is pushing costs artificially from one group to another.

But not only does it corrupt the market it also swaps cheaper preventive care with the most expensive kind. Universal health care significantly reduces cost because it allows people to literally get preventative care for pennies on the emergency room dollar.

Don't worry about the pent up demand problem, within a hundred days that will be evened out and the success of this plan will have a profound effect on your cherished Republicans. Having gone all in and then doubled down their credibility as a national party will be completely gone. They will continue to be a regional party, as a result of the Southern Strategy that they embraced 3 decades ago.

Here is the irony. The idea of an individual mandate comes from the Heritage Foundation as a response to the Clinton plan of universal employer mandate. That is why Romney used it in MA. The President knew that this would be the only plan he could get through the legislature and the courts. So he took it and improved it. The Heritage Foundation promoted it as 'the capitalist alternative for universal coverage'. They were right they just didn't know that an African American President would be the one that put it forward and given the Republican Party's commitment to protect its racist flank they couldn't take partial credit but come up with a bunch of mumbo economic jumbo, the exact stuff you are parroting but do not actually grasp.