[smsm42]

That's like saying gas is a basic need for a car to move, so car insurance should cover gas. You are emphasizing exactly the problem that is at the base of all current healthcare debacle - medical "insurance" is no longer an insurance - probably wasn't for quite some time - it is a byzantinely complex system of payments for various services with wildly varied degrees of necessity, and significantly based on political considerations.

>>> You should also cover things that are preventative so that people don't end up needing catastrophic coverage.

Some people will end up needing catastrophic coverage, that's what it is for. But what you are saying people should not have a choice between buying only catastrophic coverage and managing other issues according to their current financial needs and abilities - possibly, yes, taking some limited risk on themselves - and buying comprehensive, but more expensive full-care all-included package. That would make it more expensive for those who were willing to take the risk, since this risk would be taken now by insurance company, and they will want to get paid for it, risk-shifting is never free.

>>> Paying for someone to see a therapist and take an anti-depressant is cheaper than paying for inpatient treatment if things spiral out of control.

Paying for car maintenance is cheaper than buying a new one. Yet nobody says car insurance should pay for routine car maintenance - those are different things, and people manage to take care of their cars just fine without car insurance paying for it. You're again confusing healthcare and health insurance and seem to be under impression that the only way to administer healthcare is under the umbrella of all-encompassing "insurance" policy. My point is exactly that it is not true, and that ACA moving in this direction makes it more expensive, especially for people that otherwise would like to take a bit more risk than average person in order to allow them to profit later. Those exactly people are entrepreneurs, so the claim that ACA makes them better off sounds a bit doubtful for me.

[dragonwriter]

> That's like saying gas is a basic need for a car to move, so car insurance should cover gas.

Not spending money on gas doesn't make things that existing mandatory car insurance does cover (liability) more likely or more expensive. In fact, it makes them less likely. Not spending money on mental health and contraception, OTOH, does make things that catastrophic medical insurance would cover more likely.

Financial incentives to defer costs is one of the reasons why the US healthcare system is by far the most expensive, not just in total but on a per capita or per GDP basis, in the world, despite it nor producing better results that other developed-world systems and, unlike every other OECD country except Mexico, not providing universal coverage.