Why do you keep repeating this lie? Health INSURANCE costs are way down (on the consumer side) since the ACA was passed, and health CARE costs are growing more slowly than they were before the ACA was passed. It's at least not any worse, for the nation as a whole, and it's actually better for most people as measured by their out-of-pocket costs.
Why do you keep repeating the following lies? We all pay for insurance one way or another. Costs are not covered through thin air. Someone must always pay the price. The cost of coverage has gone up substantially over the last few years despite a declining treat back in 2003 which has little to do with ACA passage. Yes, some people have benefits and some people have suffered while many see little difference.
Why do you keep repeating this lie? Doctor networks are dictated by the insurers, not the government. If anything, the ACA's regulations brought more customers into each network, strengthening the insurance network in (primarily rural) places were it was previously in bad shape.
Why do you keep repeating this lie? ACA brought customers into sporadic networks of poor coverage. It is the reason why people did not get to keep their doctors as promised. Because the market place is so unstable people are forced into changing coverage every year and therefor changing doctors every year.
The ACA improved insurance coverage for everyone by mandating minimum coverage standards, You can no longer buy "health insurance" that doesn't cover hospitalization or prescription drugs. Can you believe that actually used to be a thing?
The ACA made insurance better, by mandating that it actually cover medical costs that were previously excluded.
Why do you keep repeating this lie? Just because you have minimum coverage does not mean you can still afford it? Just because you have insurance does not mean you can cover the $6k or $12k deductible every year. Yes, having minimum standards has helped some, but not everyone wants prescription coverage or is willing to pay extra to have it.
Middle class americans are not seeing the same cost increases that rich doctors are seeing. Middle class americans saw their coverage quality increase, their premium growth rates slow, and tens of thousands of them were saved from medical bankruptcy because the ACA mandated their insurance plans cover costs that were previously excluded, or because they were offerred insurance in a marketplace where they were previoustly not allowed to buy insurance at all. This was good for America. I'm okay with taxing the rich to accomplish those goals.
You seam to be confused a little. I never said all middle class Americans. Middle class America has a huge range of income. For many with pre-existing conditions the ACA was a benefit. For others is was a detriment. Also, having more costly provisions in your insurance does not necessarily make it better. For example, I do not need prenatal care, nor does my 62 year old mother. Ohh, and anyone buying health insurance from the market place has had price increases in the 100-300% range.
The "ACA dismantle" you seem to think people want is NOT what I think they want. People do NOT want to give up their subsidized health insurance so that the government can give a huge tax break to rich people like you (and me). What kind of person actually supports that plan?
I think you may have misread me. I never said everyone wants the ACA dismantled, only those that have been harmed by it. I think you read what I write, but only choose to take in the pieces you disagree with and then throw out an argument to combat that piece which was taken out of context.
Sol, please read this and if you can answer my questionsI can clearly point out the benefits of the ACA and also the harms. Why can't you? Are you so stuck in thinking it is the best thing since sliced bread that you ignore some of its detriments? I believe there is a psychological effect that comes into play here and it is called consistency. When someone openly takes a stand on a subject, they will consistently continue to take that stand without waver despite facts that may prove them wrong. In your case not wrong, but also not 100% accurate. There are without a doubt some excellent things the ACA did, but it came at a cost. Let me repeat this so that you don't ignore it. "There are without a doubt some excellent things the ACA did, but it came at a cost." For
some middle class taxpayers it made healthcare which was once affordable all of a sudden unaffordable.
Try answering these questions:
1) Can you agree that just because someone has health insurance does not mean that they can still afford their deductible, and having health insurance vs having no insurance changes nothing regarding their ability to afford healthcare? No benefit or harm of ACA
2) Can you agree that some people who had no health insurance can get partial subsidies, but still can't afford their deductibles and now are mandated to pay for an insurance that provides no benefit, but still can't afford the care because their subsidies are so high? Minor detriment with potential benefit of ACA
3) Can you agree that many Americans had to change their doctors because their new mandated health plan is not taken by their physician? Minor detriment
4) Can you agree that some physicians refuse to accept healthcare.gov insurances because they are concerned they will not get paid because of the high deductible? Medium detriment
5) Can you agree that a family of 3 making $110k/yr is now paying significantly more for healthcare compared to pre ACA passage? Can you agree the cost may have increased significantly considering the increased deductibles? Very major detriment for that family.
6) Can you agree that a man or a women over 45 does not require prenatal care covered through their health insurance and having it does not make their insurance better? Very minor detriment.
7) Big question for you now which I asked earlier in this thread. This is a hypothetical straw man question but the concept is really important. Should we induce 1 tax payer to have unaffordable healthcare so that 1 non taxpayer can have affordable healthcare? What about 1 tax payer suffer to benefit 10 non tax payers? What 10 tax payers suffer to help one non tax payer? Obviously life is not so black and white, but the concept is very important.
Sol, why is it that you simply can't come to terms that the ACA is not perfect, has harmed a percentage of taxpayers and the law needs improvement on. The best way to help the ACA perform better is not through arguing who will pay more, but working on solutions to decrease cost.
BTW, I can fully agree with you that expanding medicaid has helped a significant amount of people. I will agree that the pre-existing condition mandate allowed many get healthcare coverage which was once completely unaffordable or unavailable. I can also agree with you that there is a solid subset of the population that is better off thanks to the ACA. Now lets see if you can agree with me at all. Lets see if you even respond.