This claim didn't hold water when Paul Ryan tried it, and it doesn't hold water now.

Per the CBO analysis of the Senate Bill:

"Enrollment in Medicaid would be lower throughout the coming decade, with 15 million fewer Medicaid enrollees by 2026 than projected under current law in CBO’s March 2016 baseline"

Over two-thirds of the 22 million that the CBO projects would lose out on insurance, would lose out through Medicaid. Medicaid is a hell of a deal and it would be a pretty big stretch to say that those losing out on Medicaid eligibility "don't find value" in it. 

As for the other 7 million, perhaps they would theoretically be making a value calculation, but remember that the bill would dramatically change that equation. 

Under the BCRA, subsidies would change. Currently, they are based on a benchmark plan with 70% actuarial value. The new benchmark would be a plan with 58% actuarial value. So while some of those 7 million may lose coverage because they "don't value" it, part of the reason why they may not value it has to do with this proposed bill lowering the value of the coverage available to them. 

How about we just do universal healthcare like just about everyone else? It's been proven to be cheaper, and it literally benefits every party. With republicare we basically pay for our health insurance twice.

But seriously, our taxes pay for law enforcement, they pay for fire, they pay for roads, they pay for education, why not health? Seems obvious to me, but what do I know.

Im truly interested in how other countries are able to provide universal health care. How do you guys and gals who live in other countries keep costs down when there is no competition? Does the government just do a better job there of fighting to keep lower costs than they do in the US?

I'm all for health care reform here. But almost always when there is more government involvement in something in the US, prices skyrocket. If you look at when the skyrocketed in the US beyond other nations, its when medicare/caid were enacted. Insurers could then charge crazy rates to the gov't which then set the norms for everyone else.

Even though I'm a libertarian kinda republican, I don't have a problem with health care for everyone here. But we can't just keep taxing the middle class and rich more and more to fund it. We HAVE to address the out of control costs or we'll never have an adequate solution.

1. I like this one. I can't imagine people ever even see those ads and go to the dr saying "I WANT THIS MED!" Seems like wasted money.

2. I get this - its an American problem of being sue-happy. Not sure how to get around it besides outlawing malpractice suits. Maybe there could be legislation to at least cap the amount? Not sure.

3. I don't understand how this one helps bring costs down. I would think it could increase it, if anything. (Not against it, just don't understand how it lowers cost).

4. I mean, this is the crux of the issue. If the one point of contact is the gov't (at least the US gov't) prices don't go down (in general). Lack of competition just results in a monopoly and prices going up. I like the idea in theory, but there would have to be serious changes. As stated earlier, medicaid and medicare cause prices to jump significantly here. 

I appreciate you taking the time to respond!

I believe we should have universal healthcare in the USA, but in the interest of advocating for the devil, I'd answer this in two different ways.

1.) What is the nuts and bolts reason why we haven't voted for universal care yet?

The idea of universal care is actually pretty popular right now. Per a Gallup poll last year, 58% of Americans are in favor of replacing the ACA with a universal system, however, when push comes to shove, there is comparatively less motivation from the voting electorate. I have a few ideas as to why this is the case.

Per the Kaiser Family Foundation, 36% of people already have government funded healthcare, including 14% that are covered by Medicare. Those age 65 and older have single payer healthcare, they vote a lot, and they have little personal motivation for the government granting universal care to everyone else. 

Another 20% is made up of Medicaid beneficiaries. Given the costant uncertainty around Medicaid, this group would have a bigger incentive to move towards universal care, as it would remove a constant, looming questionmark from their lives. Unlike the old people referenced above though, many people on Medicaid are either poor, or children. Children can't vote, and poor people don't vote (as much as their higher income peers).

49% of Americans do not have government funded healthcare, but they are getting healthcare through their employers. This cost is typically subsidized by the employer, so these people are shielded a bit from the true cost of care.

After subtracted employer coverage, and public options like Medicare and Medicaid, we're left with ~16% of people who either go it alone, or are uninsured. 

2.) Why might some individuals not want universal care?

Money, simply put. But not just money for the big guys at the top. The middle and upper-middle class stand to lose out as well.

I'll use myself as an example. I am currently covered through my employer. I am young and healthy, so I select a relatively inexpensive plan with a high dedutible each year during open enrollment. The plan has a HSA (health-savings account) feature that allows me to save over $3K a year, tax deferred. If and when I do get sick, I can use those savings to buy health care services, tax-free. If I am somehow incredibly lucky, and I make it to retirement with no major medical incidents, I can use that money (which could very well grow into six figures by my 60s) just as additional retirement savings.

The passing of the ACA already meant more expensive coverage for me. Given that "Affordable" premiums in the act, is defined by no more than 9.5% of a person's earnings going towards coverage for themselves, my company had to stratify health premiums, so that people making more money paid more for the same coverage so that people making less money were subsidized. 

I would have to imagine that people like me would be hit even more were universal healthcare to pass.

I am not wealthy by any means, but I am young, healthy, I have a good job, and I am good with money. The fact is that the American healthcare system works out phenomenally for me and many others like me.

Selling across state lines is mostly just a conservative talking point. It's something that they say so that they can sound like they have ideas to solve the healthcare issue when really, the don't.

Single-payer is cheaper in other countries because you mostly have one party, who is the only game in town, bargaining with service providers to set prices for services.

In the USA, there are a ton of payers. The government, individuals, and insurance companies. Insurance companies have an incentive to keep their rates low so that they can out-compete their rivals, but really, the more people spend on healthcare, the better off an insurance company is. Of course, healthcare still has to be affordable for the American public, or else the insurers would have no customers, but by and large, it is affordable. America is an extremely wealthy country. Basically, we pay more for healthcare because providers know that we can afford it.

This is untrue. Medicare and medicaid are far more efficient on a cost basis than their private insureres.

See this nifty graph from Kaiser (data from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services)

So? *shrugs They can just sign up with a different insurance than they had.

That graph is telling - but I didn't explain myself well enough - take a look at when health care costs skyrocketed - it's the same time that medicare and medicaid were passed and enacted. I'll try and find a graph.

There's a bunch of what I was talking about in the article here: http://mediatrackers.org/national/2013/10/01/8-charts-explain-explosive-growth-u-s-health-care-costs