Can you say with 100% certainty that you will be paying more (or less) for healthcare?

[rucky]

under the new plan.

I honestly have no flippin' idea - and I think that's part of the problem. I don't think anybody really does. One of the biggest shortcomings of the bill - and in the selling of the plan - is that we don't know what the real-life application of this will be like. Don't just tell us this is a good plan - show us. Don't just say it's a bad plan - at least attempt to quantify how bad it is.

I remember in the campaign when Obama was pitching his tax proposal, and you could go on the website, enter how much you earn, number of dependents, etc, and get a good idea of whether your taxes would go up or down.

I wish there were a tool like this for the healthcare plan. I know there are tons of variables to consider, but just getting a ballpark figure of out-of-pocket costs - based on each of our needs, or any scenario you're curious about - would really help ease alot of fears (or demonstrate how we're being duped).

I don't think it's possible to really estimate this, so we're split on the issue and arguing based on fear or faith, conflicting economic principles, and mere speculation. One example is the mandate: On one hand, it can be seen as a racket - we're forced to buy in, some of us will get subsidies, but we still don't know how much we'll really pay. The argument for the mandate is that the routine care and having healthy people buy in will help control costs (the $100 asprin has been an example of how healthcare providers recoup costs of care for the uninsured), and these cost reductions will be passed down. In theory, this makes sense as much as the racket argument does, but there are no explicit guarantees of this in the bill (that I know of).

The proponents of the plan could go a long way in gaining more enthusiastic support if they could give specific examples of how the new plan will help. Early on in the debate, it was the stories of healthcare nightmares that really exposed how rotten the current system is. How about going back to some of these extreme cases and showing the actual value of the plan will bring to these people? How about someone in their 20's and uninsured? Is there an incentive for them to get insured, or just a punishment if they don't? If we insure the uninsured, what is the estimated cost savings for the rest of us? Does limiting out-of-pocket expenses cancel this out, due to the added burden we'll shoulder in covering catastrophic illness?

So many unanswered questions. It's the uncertainty - more than the plan itself - that's making it catch so much heat. Maybe the answers are out there, but it's the responsibility of the people selling us this - or bent on sinking it - to bring those answers to us.