Obamacare was a (temporary) gift to the insurance companies, who now have many millions more new (forced) customers. But insurance companies are the PROBLEM, not the solution. It is the fact that most people pay little or none of their own medical care costs that has created distortions in the market. And it is the enormous discount negotiated with insurance companies that is unjust toward those without insurance—because the prices are so high without insurance (the uninsured typically pay 3x the amount that an insurance company would pay for the same service).

Instead, as all the speakers pointed out last night, we must really make insurance be INSURANCE again. Catastrophic coverage when something goes wrong. Not paying for every trip to the doctor and every test, which drives up the demand (why not go to the doctor if someone else is paying the bill?) without increasing the supply, which of course drives up the cost.

As Speaker O'Brien said last night, with liberty comes personal responsibility, so we must as a people began taking responsibility for ourselves, which includes paying for doctor visits, lab tests, and other routine medical care just like we pay for oil changes on our cars. And we must also be responsible to one another through charity—which is NOT government forced redistribution, but rather is voluntarily giving of our own money and time to help one another, which binds us to our neighbors and fosters a rich and vibrant civil society.

Ms. McKinney is exactly correct! Insurance has morphed into a third-party paying agency rather than one that uses the the capital of its subscribers along with the relative probability of expensive procedures to keep catastrophic health events from financially sinking those members. This distortion has served to change the way Americans look at health care coverage. Rather than a wise hedge against future health risks, many now insist that insurance should pay for everything from a hang-nail to a heart-attack with low or no deductible. This kind of mindset puts incentives in the wrong place and promotes overuse of the system.

Companies in the private sector today are building their insurance coverage around encouraging healthy lifestyles. Employees get incentives for taking health screenings so they can be made aware of potential health issues. Programs are expanding to encourage healthy lifestyles - diet, exercise, keeping active - with employers paying some of the cost. Employers are also offering fully covered physicals and annual tests. Why? Because it makes employees aware of potential health issues and makes them more aware so things don't explode into larger problems - which WOULD be catastrophic or expensive if gone unchecked. IMHO, going back to a true "insurance" system, as described by some in this thread, would result in more significant expenses down the road and ultimately add MORE cost into the system. These changes were underway long before "Obamacare" came into view....

Jack you are apparently very unaware that NH legislature under BOTH political regimes has addressed insurance for all for a long time with NO restrictions on availability and accessibility to all and that coverages had been extended to those attending college up to as far as age 25, however, agreeably it did not address those under that age who left school at 18 and pursued other avenues. None of this addressed the cost of health care even though accessible to all as the cost had to actually go up from an actuarial stand point to have insurance coverage maintain viability.....the uninsured were still forced then to use hospitals and providers since the actual insurance coverage was unaffordable. Insurance never has addressed or incentivized healthy lifestyles since it has paid for everything irregardless of cost or any individuals lifestyle choices that may be contributing to the causes....obesity, smoking, excessive use of alcohol or illicit drugs. If you had insurance that gave you a financial incentive for healthier lifestyles and penalized people who chose to live ongoing unhealthy lifestyles would that work better for you? We are a long way still from any viable solution and Obamacare is not there even though there are some very good parts such as not limiting lifetime benefits, coverage up to age 26, some of which had already been in place around the country.

In my view, healthy lifestyles are an important part of controlling costs but it is not where we should start. A better way is to allow more market forces to work on the system. Today, consumers of health care are too insulated from its costs and the health care choices they make are based on coverage plans, not perceived value. As a consequence, there are no real forces driving the system to be more efficient in delivery of services. We would be better off if companies stopped offering health insurance to their employees all together and just increased employee pay. This way individuals would shop for insurance (or become self pay) on their own. Natural groups and packages would form that would promote the healthy lifestyles that others are arguing for to control costs (just like safe driver discounts that exist in auto insurance). At that point, the problem becomes a much more manageable one of dealing with the small segment of the population that is truly needy. To that group, I would look for charities, not the Government, to take on the lion's share of the support. Charities are much more nimble and are better at sniffing out fraud and scam artists than the bureaucracy is.

People can opt out of Obamacare and pay a fine instead. These people will still show up at the ER. Obamacare solves nothing and only serves to provide less care for those who pay already. I have used liquid oxygen for over 6 years now andI have Anthem Blue Cross. I received a phone call from my oxygen provider last week informing me that he would not be providing liquid oxygen after December 31st because MEdicare was no longer covering it. So - here I am already being affected and I have my own insurance. Tell me this boondoggle isn't going to lower the standards and cost us much more. A disaster!

John thank you kindly for this posting. I do hope that Jeannine picks up on this issue. In reading through the article it still seems so senseless that this equipment being rented by Medicare pays for it many times over the way the system works! But someone who needs oxygen should get it irregardless.....or will this become the advent of euthanasia under Obamacare.....it happened in Germany in WWII so we should think that it would never happen here!