>>>>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...
>
>If we are both still hanging around here in 2015 and 2016 (and still arguing, LOL) I bet you will be paying less for health care than you are now. My prediction is all the current hue and cry about whether this is a good idea will be a quaint memory. The true cost of health care to American workers will be even less if the indirect employer costs are factored in. They have been asking employees to contribute a higher and higher percentage but they still pay about 75% of the premium. As their costs recede they will be able to spend that money in other ways, to the benefit of shareholders and employees alike.

Unless healthcare is free to all employees in 2015 or 2016, you would be wrong.