Question (prompted by Beckel on Fox)

[deltex1]

If you have no heath insurance and have a heart attack and go to an emergency room and they find a blockage the hospital fixes you and it costs 60K which is absorbed by the taxpayers. If you have insurance the cost is "spread around" the rest of the insured population. But the cost of the care is still 60K...so where are the savings in the ACA?

 

[deltex1]

Maybe its the "free" government subsidies that will reduce the cost?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

If you have no heath insurance and have a heart attack and go to an emergency room and they find a blockage the hospital fixes you and it costs 60K which is absorbed by the taxpayers. If you have insurance the cost is "spread around" the rest of the insured population. But the cost of the care is still 60K...so where are the savings in the ACA?

Well to be fair...
If someone does not have insurance the cost are staggeringly higher.
A person with no insurance would be more like $90-$100k...while an insured person using previously agreed upon costing structures...would be $60k.
With ACA, the person likely has a $7-$10k deductable and a 40% copay...so the individual will have a second heart attack when he gets the bill.