the problems, which means that litterally millions of more people will lose everything they have and perhaps hundreds of thousands more people will die because they continue to not be abe to afford healthcare in the next four years if obama wins and either his plan is adopted (which may mean prices will HAVE to rise, because he now, just recently, claimed to end risk based pricing without a mandate, which is the worst thing you can do to worsen adverse selection. If he does not end risk based pricing (as shown in Obama's FAQ on Healthcare and which Goolsbee admits) he still wont be able to help, AT ALL, the sickest 20% of Americans, those who have seen a doctor more than average - those with chronic conditions, basically everyone who the insurance inddustry considers high risk and raises rates for.)
Obama is concentrating on healthy, employed (at big employers) people. The others get left out and indeed, will almost certainly see rates rise a little (scenario 2) or a LOT (scenario 1)
Here's a good description why:
from http://www.economist.com/research/Econom ics/alphabetic.cfm?LETTER=A
"Adverse selection
When you do business with people you would be better off avoiding. This is one of two main sorts of market failure often associated with insurance. The other is moral hazard. Adverse selection can be a problem when there is asymmetric information between the seller of insurance and the buyer; in particular, insurance will often not be profitable when buyers have better information about their risk of claiming than does the seller. Ideally, insurance premiums should be set according to the risk of a randomly selected person in the insured slice of the population (55-year-old male smokers, say). In practice, this means the average risk of that group. When there is adverse selection, people who know they have a higher risk of claiming than the average of the group will buy the insurance, whereas those who have a below-average risk may decide it is too expensive to be worth buying. In this case, premiums set according to the average risk will not be sufficient to cover the claims that eventually arise, because among the people who have bought the policy more will have above-average risk than below-average risk. Putting up the premium will not solve this problem, for as the premium rises the insurance policy will become unattractive to more of the people who know they have a lower risk of claiming. One way to reduce adverse selection is to make the purchase of insurance compulsory, so that those for whom insurance priced for average risk is unattractive are not able to opt out."
Healthcare costs - uncovered healthcare costs ESPECIALLY, are SKYROCKETING..
People are STARVING to buy medications that take pennies to manufacture.
That is why a lot of people are DEPENDING on the Democrats. They THINK things are going to start impriving next January 21, they could not care less about these feuds, and are not going to be happy when they realize they have been ripped off.
the crux of your argument is the complete opposite of what are the goals outlined by barack obama.
which means that litterally millions of more people will lose everything they have and perhaps hundreds of thousands more people will die because they continue to not be abe to afford healthcare in the next four years
given the fact that barack emphasizes affordability over mandates, this sentence is without merit. you don't seem to mind that hillary won't even get to her health care plan until her 7th year, so i'm not sure how serious i can take that comment anyway.
given barack's emphasis on process -- building a broad coalition that will support health care reform -- instead of proposals, i think you're tilting at windmills. i could understand if barack was like hillary (it's my way or the highway), but he's not. his proposal is the starting point, not the end point...
