What is this AHCA you're talking about? There's the PPACA, or ACA. Are you talking about your screwed up Florida system of health insurance?

The cost has doubled and tripled because gov't has been regulating all aspects of the medical industry before the PPACA, and its aided pharmaceutical companies and hospitals (and doctors) to gouge the crap out of customers. In every other developed country, they all get medical care, while sufficiently containing costs. The US has the most inefficient health care system in the world. That means we pay 2.5x more money for the same treatment as other countries. But its the greatest system in the world, if you're rich.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but no way is the ACA a "long term" solution to the health insurance problem in the US. Politicians will be back to the drawing board at some point before 2030.

The other problem is that the ACA will only marginally control health care costs (according to the CBO). Overall, health care costs are going up, regardless. What the ACA really addresses is the health insurance collapse the country would have been headed towards if it didn't change the status quo in 2009.

But your perspective is much more accurate, compared to a Republican partisan. I hope there isn't huge bad news on this front before November, this year.

I wish I could upvote you.

Every place is going to be a battleground state in November 2014. Presuming Obamacare is going to sway votes, we'll know exactly how successful or unsuccesful the initial phase has been by then.

It doesn't matter if the federal gov't is lying about the number of people enrolled. The federal gov't lies to its citizens all the time, for political perception management. And we've never seen Republicans lie about what the gov't has done and not done. /s

The key thing to realize is that the federal gov't is not going to be able lie to the actuaries who set policy premiums. And after business health insurance pools sets its rates later this year, and states/businesses opt in, or drop out, we'll know by 2015 if the ACA seems to be working, or was a bald faced lie.

The worst "penalty" would be uninsured, and have to pay a tax for it ($350-700?).

The "deadline" was all about being covered for health care in 2014. There's nothing stopping you from enrolling next year, and paying a premium minus the tax, to be covered in 2015. Or pay nothing at all and have insurance in 2015. Or pay an increase in your health insurance because the health insurance exchanges didn't get enough young people to enroll.

I actually have a smidge more sympathy for the crooked-ass contractors. I believe Kathy Sibelius, and every manager associated with the website, should have resigned for the piss poor project management done by HHS to implement the federal website.

Eventually, hospitals and clinics won't be able to charge $37 for an aspirin. They will have to meet eligibility requirements, via ACA, and they were never able to charge $37 for an aspirin through health insurers. That was the ER admission cost. Finally, profits from insurance plans are capped; if the insurance company charges too much for their premium, they will have to return the excess to policyholders.

It doesn't mean the PPACA is going to fix health care costs. I predict the health care tax burden is going to be unmanageable some time after 2030. But having the PPACA now was probably better than keeping the status quo in 2009.

You live in a state that did not accept Medicaid expansion or run a state health insurance exchange. The Federal gov't covers 95% of medicaid coverage costs for the next three years. So basically, your state had to accept pre-existing conditions, while not getting access to the 95% medicaid payment pool. Presuming the federal gov't only offset medicaid costs by 50%, that's an addition of pre-existing conditions added, with only 50% federal medicaid payments, rather than 95%; of course there's an increase. Also, when you don't have health insurers offering plans in your state, you don't get the increased competition needed to decrease premium costs. That's what it means to be on the federal health insurance exchange. You should be able to get tax rebates to offset your premium increases, unless you make over 4x the federal poverty level (you probably do, but dependents will affect that "level").

The irony is that this topic is nerd related, because most of the issues involved are actuarial in nature.

Sadly, thinking one is a nerd doesn't mean they apply any analysis or thought to issues that affect their life.

Well, that would be socialism then, wouldn't it?

What makes the "Congressional-grade" insurance programs such a sweet deal to policyholders is that they are not paying a penny for it. You have to make someone pay for "free" insurance to 47 million uninsured...

While on one hand, I'd disagree that the insurance approach is "mathematically-broken", it certainly will not tangibly "fix" the real problem with US health care/insurance; its too inefficient compared to most foreign countries' systems. More people will be covered under "Obamacare", per capita health treatment costs will not increase more than what was projected before PPACA, and eventually most Republican states will adopt Medicaid expansion and health insurance exchanges, and the "increases" will go down for them, (or the unlikely event that US will elect a Republican controlled house, senate, & POTUS and "repeal" the PPACA). And then, after 2030, the health care costs will be bankrupting the US taxpayers, and the politicians will finally have to fix the system (again).

You live in a Republican run state. Boo hoo. If they had accepted the Medicaid expansion, and ran a health exchange, your premium wouldn't have doubled, and you would have gotten tax rebates to offset the premium (unless you're rich). Look on the bright side; if that premium increase is the insurance company trying to loot you, they will have to return whatever is over their 20% profit, regardless of what state you live in. In any case, blame your state politicians for paying for my (NY) health care.

Excuse me, are you stupid enough to actually believe that ERs provide chemotherapy treatment for cancer walk-ins? ERs cannot turn away patients who need "immediate" care to prevent imminent death (gunshot wound, bleeding to death, etc.), but they're not required to "cure" the patient of their health ailment, even if it will eventually be fatal if not "properly" treated.