You are much more optimistic than I am about being on Medicare which has been severely cut already. I guess we will see!

AMAZING!!! The Heritage Foundation opposes the AHCA! That is shocking, almost as shocking as the fact that MSNBC endorses it. Please spare me the wing-nut propaganda.

But gov. Cuomo's announcement was not "wing-nut propaganda"?

if all of this rate reduction is due to competition - why did we get AHCA instead of the ability to cross state lines to purchase insurance?

Seek the truth - don't fall for the propaganda.

I sincerely hope you are right...I really do. Should not affect old guys like me, but younger folks need to pay attention.

My opposition is and always has been that I thought the goal was to reduce healthcare costs and it "seems" to be having an opposite effect.

I sure hope you are right.

i heard some talking head report today that the aca needs healthy youg people to procure health insurance [hopefully thru the exchanges] rather than pay the fine for not doing so.

how is that gonna happen if they can remain on their parent's health insurance policy 'til they are 26 years old? isn't that a big chunk of the young people the aca is depending on?

So you really believe this bill is cutting health costs ?

I hope you know this is a serious question and not a political thing

If the Massachusetts Health Care Law (passed in 2006) was so wonderful, why is it that no other state followed their example? Everything was worked out so they had the MA template. But there were no takers.

Several years later, the federal government comes along and says, in effect, "if no one likes it, we will force it on everyone". Isn't that what it boils down to?

I think it is a wonderful plan

My only complaint about the affordable care act is that it does not go far enough. The U.S. is the only developed country that does not have a universal, single-payer system. Canada, Japan, Australia, and most European countries have such systems. By any objective measure, they spend less on health care than the U.S. and achieve far better results. Those opposed to such a system for the U.S. will dwell on the occasional horror stories about poor care under these systems, while ignoring the poor care, high costs and unnecessary procedures which are a regular part of our dysfunctional health care system.

If you actually read the article the o.p. linked, the assertions made are based on fact and reality, with a full bibliography in which the source studies can be seen.

Below is one example from the article. The last sentence is a real concern based on all the twenty-somethings I know, who include our kids and many friends' and neighbors' college-graduate kids who are either uninsured, under-insured, or are still on their parents' insurance while unable to get a job in their degree area and their student loan payments are looming as they work part-time as waiters and retail clerks....

"4. Minimized Youth Discount

The average 60-year-old consumes about six times as much health care as the average 20-year-old, but the AHCA mandates that insurers charge the oldest individuals in the risk pool no more than three times the lowest rate.

As a result, young individuals will pay much more than the actuarially fair amount for their premiums. Management consulting firm Oliver Wyman estimated that premiums will rise by 45 percent for those age 18–24, 35 percent for those age 25–29, and 26 percent for those age 30–34.[4]

Some people really do believe this bill will lower health care costs. But for us that is not what is happening. Our monthly out of pocket went up $225 per month this year. When checking with my wife's former employer and our health care provider they placed the blame for the increase squarely on this bill and advised us to expect another increase in 2014.

A few months ago I watched a business news interview with the CEO of Aetna. One of the questions asked of him was about some of the mandated "free" coverages to be provided as part of the bill. He matter of factly stated that there is no such thing as "free" coverage but that the cost for such items will be spread out over all policies/individuals.

If it costs more for everyone to have coverage, then I am all for it. You must separate medical care from luxury material, medical is a necessity not a bigger house or fancier car. The greed for more more more must be replaced with common decency for our fellow man. I know people that drive a Mercedes but will not help the less fortunate with basic survival.

Most people intended to benefit from the current healthcare reform are people who live paycheck-to-paycheck and are barely able to make their modest mortgage payments, NOT people wanting a Mercedes or a McMansion.

And the other side of your Mercedes-driving acquaintances is that many, if not most, DO help the less fortunate in ways other than just pushing for more government dependency and "giving" programs. You don't know what charitable giving and high tax rates every expensive car driver submits on his tax returns.

I know quite a few people who are small business owners who treated themselves to a Mercedes or BMW 20-30 years after risking their house, IRAs and everything they had to start a business and keep it solvent and keep their employees employed and having some basic health insurance!

70% of jobs in the USA are provided by small business, and the way they help the "less fortunate" is by providing a JOB. If the small business owner drives a Mercedes or a Rolls Royce, he has earned it. And also, the corporate executive has earned it too, by starting at the very bottom in an entry-level position paying barely above minimum wage, and based on erratic commissions that disqualify many from even getting a mortgage for a decent, not grand, home of their own for many years.