Of course it is alarming. That's one of the reasons so many on the political right in the USA oppose it -- and I am not talking about the fruit bat fringe.
The basic idea is that more people will be provided service (the purpose of the act in the first place). That greater total amount of service will require more health care spending overall, even if there is somewhat less spending on a per capita basis (which is being argued).
Can that be altered? Yes.
To alter it in a substantial way would require:
1) A decrease in services.
2) An alteration in the services provided (shift to preventative for example).
3) An alteration in the population's behavior (overeating, under-exercising, & tobacco use).
4) Price controls on various elements of the health care system, notably salaries for medical licensed health care providers.
or some combination of 1-4.
#1 runs counter to the stated goal of making health care better for all, while 3 & 4 are problematic in implementation under our current system of governance. 3 & 4 would really only become possible under a full-on national health care system.
I should note here that any number of those on America's political left, along with some issue-by-issue types among the moderates, are angry with the situation and with the ACA precisely because it does NOT take the necessary steps to shift us to a true national health care system. I suspect that they're frustrated as well precisely because they believe that nothing less than such a system could truly influence the largest components of American Health Care costs: Poor lifestyle choices, Physician and specialist salaries, and Medical malpractice/insurance therefrom.
Bookmarks