>>Whether this will encourage more consumption, I don't know.
>
>Do you know any rational person that would accept dying or living in pain in order to save "the system" some money?
>
>Subsidizing or fully paying for something will of course encourage consumption.
>
>Since the "something" here is literally life and death, expect consumption to increase apace.

I think you two are mistaken. There is no need to "encourage consumption" because paying for health insurance has now been mandated (or will be if the same requirement remains when the house bill and the senate bill get reconciled). Did you miss the part where buying health insurance is now required? Consumption is guaranteed.

Comparison of house and senate bills:
http://www.nacsonline.com/NACS/News/Daily/Pages/ND1224091.aspx

What's Required: Nearly everyone must get coverage through an employer, on their own, or via a government plan (there are economic hardship exemptions). Those who are obligated to purchase coverage but refuse would be fined from $95 to $750 beginning in 2014.


Another snapshot:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/24/senate-passes-health-care_n_402802.html

The bill provides billions in subsidies for low and middle class Americans to purchase private insurance. All Americans would be required to be insured unless they can demonstrate that doing so would be unaffordable. The GOP, along with some constitutional scholars, argues that such a mandate is unconstitutional. Other scholars disagree and the matter is sure to be litigated.

The question is, what income levels fall into the subsidy category? How much will my health care cost go up? I guess I will find out in 2014...