Some kind of hybrid system, perhaps. Even in the UK there is the ability to use the NHS and also use a BUPA plan concurrently.

But that's what the ACA is - you pay for your own, or if you're poor enough, the government pays for you. What Obama didn't realise, or didn't care, is that the appetite for healthcare is extremely large in the poorest sections of society. There are all sorts of reasons why that is the case, but large numbers of poor people seem unable to make good lifestyle choices and thereby avoid obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancers caused by voluntarily ingested toxins, among other things. The ACA has cracked the floodgates for a truely massive increase in the demand for healthcare services, and dramatic increases in demand are never conducive to a reduction in costs.

That's part of the reason, but IMO the main reason for rising costs is modern medicine itself continuing to find new treatments to prolong peoples' lives when they get sick. Whereas before you would by SOL if you got cancer for example. Now you get chemo, take some pills and whatever else and it all adds up to more costs. Ultimately there is no way to contain healthcare costs while we continue to fight against survival of the fittest.

That colour really doesn't suit you.

I am led to understand that the BUPA plans in the UK are actually affordable though.

Meh, I'm just bitter because my premiums increased and a few gaps in coverage opened up after the change

Not when you are old and in need, my Parents had it through work and then continued it when they retired but obviously costs got silly so they just paid as they went.

That is certainly true too. ..... And one that is difficult to address, unless you draw a line in the sand and say "we only fund treatments implemented prior to x date" but that is grossly impractical for all sort of reasons, not least that sometimes new treatments are cheaper than previous ones.

You pay for the most cost effective.

It's not just the "poorest sections of society" though when we're talking about the US. There was a study done a few years ago of the health of Americans versus Brits:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/he...ted=print&_r=0

And you don't pay for treatments with no reasonable liklihood of effectiveness ..... or as some idiots like to call it "death panels".

Personally I think that there should be two sorts of insurance - "all you can eat" policies that cover everything imaginable including examination of chicken entrails and potions made from pixie dust, and those which cover "medically proven procedures and therapies." Then let people decide which they want to pay for.

Maybe we can find a way to make the snake oil salesmen and those who follow them subsidize the normal plans for normal people ...

Shades of Little Britain.

That is what the tax on "cadillac plans" attempts to do, albeit in a half-assed way.

At the risk of making us both sound like we're arguing against our usual apparent position, I have a lot of sympathy for the poor and uneducated who make poor lifestyle choices through ignorance or lack of alternatives, but rather less sympathy for the educated and rich who know better despite having many options open to them.