what is OBAMACARE'S Fatal Flaw?

Glad the young'ens are so happy with my Medicare.

I have believed it is that it makes the medical systems major problem (costs) worse, but is it that it is attempting to be yet another wealth transfer mechanism from the young to the old (the mandate that healthy youth need to be charged at least 1/3 of the highest rate even though they will not use anything close to that amount of health care )? is the scheme never going to even get off the ground because healthy youth dont buy in and pay up, thus making the risk pool much worse and rates for everyone unaffordable? I think the thinking was that youth will pay because they really want insurance, but this does not mean they are stupid enough to over pay for it, they have few assets to take so all they need to do is get care and then not pay the bill, no one can do anything to stop them from doing it under current law.

One of the ACA’s much-discussed provisions aims to limit the
variation in health care premiums charged in the nongroup
insurance market to a maximum ratio of 3:1 for older adults
compared to their younger counterparts. Such age rating bands
would prevent insurers from charging an adult age 64 more than
three times the premium of a 21 year-old for the same coverage.
Considerable attention has been given to the potential for this
so-called “rate shock” in the nongroup insurance market once
provisions of the ACA are fully implemented in 2014. In particular,
the insurance industry has warned that the 3:1 age bands
included in the law will substantially increase premiums for young
adults. Some believe that a 3:1 ratio effectively forces younger
adults to subsidize insurance costs for older Americans. Others
warn the increases would make insurance unaffordable for many
young adults and families—pushing them out of the insurance
market altogether and leaving them uninsured. Instead, they
advocate for an alternative 5:1 variation in premium costs—which
is more closely aligned with the current premium variations by
age in today’s nongroup insurance market

It's much better when the poor can't afford medicine except at emergency rooms for specific incidents

That's the second and perhaps more misunderstood part of this emergency department misconception. The costs of treatment in the emergency room are not quickly dismissed or written off. You'll get that emergent care, but you'll also be charged for it.

And hospitals aren't going to let that go easily. A recent article in the New York Times detailed how Accretive Health, a medical debt collector, is using aggressive tactics such as confronting patients in their hospital beds to collect the money owed for even emergent care. The article also describes how collection agencies have long been used to go after patients after they've left the treatment facility. In some cases, patients were even confronted and stalled by debt collectors as they entered the emergency department on some later occasion so that the company could collect on old bills before more care was offered.

An even more recent story covered by Kaiser Health News and NPR reported on a family of four sued by its local nonprofit hospital. The family earned about $25,000 a year -- below the poverty line -- but the parents did not qualify for Medicaid in Ohio. It seems that the hospital had sued almost 1,600 people for unpaid medical bills from 2009 to 2011. Further, the piece reported, "[w]hile Ohio has a law that prevents foreclosures based on medical debt alone, it is legal for hospitals to garnish patient wages, attach bank accounts and get a lien on any future earnings, including from the sale of a house."

Now, in a perverse twist, many of the poor people who rely on safety-net hospitals like Memorial will be doubly unlucky. A government subsidy, little known outside health policy circles but critical to the hospitals’ survival, is being sharply reduced under the new health law.

The subsidy, which for years has helped defray the cost of uncompensated and undercompensated care, was cut substantially on the assumption that the hospitals would replace much of the lost income with payments for patients newly covered by Medicaid or private insurance. But now the hospitals in states like Georgia will get neither the new Medicaid patients nor most of the old subsidies, which many say are crucial to the mission of care for the poor.

“We were so thrilled when the law passed, but it has backfired,” said Lindsay Caulfield, senior vice president for planning and marketing at Grady Health in Atlanta, the largest safety-net hospital in Georgia.

It is now facing the loss of nearly half of its roughly $100 million in annual subsidies known as disproportionate share hospital payments.
.
.
.
But experts and hospital administrators said it was unlikely that the federal government would make adjustments that would reward states that refused to expand Medicaid. And the health care landscape is changing so rapidly, they say, that the subsidies are crucial to keep going over the next few years

But if it is eliminated, people without much money will be back to going to emergency rooms for single incidents or deciding between eating and medicine.

it is lunacy to make medical care a universal government funded entitlement before we figure out how to provide it in an efficient economically manageable fashion.