Really?  So there's a 350 million member government run single payer system somewhere else in the world?

Oh, right. America has more people than France. Maybe not more than EU countries taken together, but more than France. What was your point again?

Single payer works in every other First World country, and provides superior service by all accounts

"I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics."

I read that article you double-linked three times looking for that quote without finding it.

Really wealthy people in America probably get superior health care service to that provided to ordinary Canadians by our system, but middle class Americans have been getting screwed for quite some time now.

I read that article you double-linked three times looking for that quote without finding it

...middle class Americans have been getting screwed for quite some time now

Which "he"?

Except for tens of millions who don't.

The "he" the article is about. Maybe you could read it.

I did. Twice.

but middle class Americans have been getting screwed for quite some time now.

Why would you believe that?  The vast, vast majority of Americans have quite good health insurance under the current system or are on some form of government plan (medicare for the old, CHIPS for the children, medicaid for the destitute).

Obamacare tinkers with the margins, mostly impacting low-skill, low-wage workers who skew very young under the theory that getting these young people into insurance plan will dilute the risk pool and lower prices for everyone.  The problem, as zyx has pointed out, is that an imposed insurance overhead for low-wage workers is necessarily quite large so employers will try to get out of providing insurance for these folks, mostly in ways which screw the low-wage workers (who, being mostly young, derive very little benefit from medical insurance anyways).

Why count 50 million uninsured people? And why notice that even people with coverage can go bankrupt covering medical expenses?

I feel certain that Romney's "plan" would deal with preexisting conditions, because he said it would on television. (I imagine his "plan" covers preexisting conditions because he factors in that Democrats won't actually cooperate in repealing Obamacare.)

Why ignore the 280 million insured people?

America had 311 million people in 2012 (estimated). If 50 million were uninsured, 261 million were insured, not 280 million. Why ignore them? I don't. But in other countries, you won't find tens of millions of people who don't have access to health care, AND you claimed that very few people were uncovered.  

Oh, ok, so only 83.9% of the populace is covered and a good chunk of those without coverage don't particularly need or want it (they are young & would rather spend money on other things)

When the current system is working for at least ~85% of the population I think that is pretty successful.  Not exactly a crisis that requires massive government intervention (fortunately, Obamacare really only tinkers on the edges)

Medical bankruptcy myths.

Your post claims that ONLY 28.3% of bankruptcies arise from medical problems instead of ONE-HALF, and they have reasons to try to minimise this problem. You should read your links before you post them.

The 28.3% of bankruptcies from "illness or injury" is from a sample in a rather shoddy Elizabeth Warren paper widely cited by Obongocare propagandists, which you seem to have overlooked in your haste to accuse others of not being able to read. I would explain how bankruptcy from "illness or injury" is not the necessarily a bankruptcy from medical bills, but obviously doing so would be futile.

you must be fucking trolling me

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

You don't believe that raising demand, lowering supply, and increasing what is covered by insurance will raise per-person costs?

That part will raise prices, diluting the risk pool with young people should have some lowering effect.  Which effect is larger remains to be seen (young people really don't use many medical services but will be paying premiums).

Encouraging high-deductible plans would have definitely kept demand in check, but (to me) the most retarded part of Obamacare effectively eliminated high-deductible plans.

"the most retarded part of Obamacare effectively eliminated high-deductible plans."

Which makes sense if your goal isn't improving health care, but increased statism.

In this case, no, raising demand will not increase per-person costs because of the manner in which demand is being raised as tjb notes.  How is supply being lowered?

raising demand will not increase per-person costs because of the manner in which demand is being raised

I'm no quite so unequivocal about that - both arguments are true: demand will go up, but insurance pools will be diluted by young people, but very expensive people (pre-existing conditions) will also be force-merged into the insurance pools as well.  

It isn't terribly clear to me which effect will dominate.

It isn't clear to me, either, what the net effect will be, but I was pointing to one specific increase in demand-- young, healthy people added to the pool-- just as zyxwvutsr was pointing to one specific change with his writeup.  The result of that change is pretty straightforward to predict and concluding that adding those folks to the insurance rolls is going to increase prices is, in zyxwvutsr's words, the result of magical thinking.

And by my bolded "that", I'm referring to the forcing into the pool of young, healthy people.

In this context all that matters is that there are currently zero-cost employees who will become a cost. We're not talking about the health insurance system as a whole, but the tiny subset of the system that exists in a single workplace.

Yes, per-person costs will increase. How could it be otherwise when we're talking about covering people (mostly young, but whatever) who are zero-cost today? The average cost could come down due to adding low-risk employees to the premium pool, but the total cost will rise. (This is inevitable unless every low-risk person currently not covered uses literally no health care once they become covered. That is so dramatically unlikely that we can dismiss the idea altogether.)

We should anticipate supply constraints as a side effect of the ACA (unintended though they may be - but that just goes to show how little the Democrats understand economic reality) for a number of reasons.

1. If you consult any basic economics text you will no doubt find a reference to shifts of the supply curve caused by the imposition of government regulations. (This is so basic, in fact, that I am more than a little surprised that you are unaware of it.) We need not try to predict the precise form of the activities that will drive that shift to know that it will occur.

2. The types of insurance products allowed under the ACA is constrained. The most obvious example already mentioned in this discussion is the effective prohibition of high-deductible plans, but there will be many other types of coverage that will not be allowed.

3. We are already seeing consolidation of suppliers in the health care system in response to the ACA.

4. There is reason to expect that physicians will reduce their workload in response to the types of price controls that are inevitable if there is an attempt to control overall spending through the ACA.

Yes, per-person costs will increase. How could it be otherwise when we're talking about covering people (mostly young, but whatever) who are zero-cost today? The average cost could come down due to adding low-risk employees to the premium pool, but the total cost will rise.

In terms of employers who already pay for health insurance, all that they care about is the average or per-person* cost.  By forcing into the pool those who would opt out because they make the bet that they're young and healthy enough that it's worth the risk, you'll be lowering those average costs.  Certainly, there are other competing effects from ACA, but that is the only effect I was commenting on-- just as your writeup was specifically focused on the increased cost of hiring lower skilled workers.

As for 1-4, all fair points, but I thought you were referring to a supply reduction caused by forcing the young and healthy into the pool.  I think we were talking past each other a bit.

*Per-person in the pool, not per-person in the US population.

In terms of employers who already pay for health insurance, all that they care about is the average or per-person* cost

Suppose 10% of my eligible workforce ops out of health insurance coverage currently. Under ACA my covered workforce will increase 11%. You are assuming that the average cost will decrease because much of the 10% who opt out are healthy - that's a fine assumption to make even though you don't know by how much the average premium will decrease,* but it is impossible for the total cost to decrease.

* It also assumes away the other provisions of ACA that will cause premiums to rise which will give even more incentive to employers to reduce the size of the full-time workforce.

You're right.  I was assuming that if an employer offers coverage, employees take it.  So, to correct my statement: the net effect will be a decrease if the per-person cost is reduced a greater percentage than the percentage increase in employees taking the coverage.

And that's not possible.

Sure it is.

More magical thinking.

"Zyxwvutsr doesn't understand" is not the same as "magical thinking".

Then explain how total cost could possibly go down.

The pool that affects the per-person price is not the same as the pool that affects the employer's total cost.  If participation in the employer's plan was sufficiently high prior to ACA, the percentage decrease in per-person cost could be higher than the percentage increase in people participating in the plan.

What comprises the new pool?