Ignorance. You are way out of your element it you want to discuss with me the realities and financial ramifications of the Affordable Care Act. It is LITERALLY my job and I'm paid to be an expert on it by some of the largest health insurers in the country. I'll skip everything else because it is merely my opinion, but your comments on the ACA are undeniably wrong.

First off, there have been numerous studies in countless countries that find there are no statistically significant differences in wait times for emergency medical care in countries with socialized medicine, that the quality of care is equitable except in a fringe case of cutting edge specialties (the US clearly does have the best technology and trained specialty doctors in the world) and that these countries all have healthier citizens that the US.

But that's not relevant - because the ACA isn't socialized medicine. Only an idiot would say that it is. It's no more "socialized" than car insurance, where the law states you must insure a vehicle you own and drive. The mandate is required of everyone, but after that point, everyone has their choice to choose any private insurance carrier they so desire. Don't like one carrier's provider network? Move to a different one. Think your deductible is too high? Shop around for one you think is more reasonable. It's the very definition of a free market solution, it simply requires that everyone has insurance coverage... just like a number of other forms of insurance, such as automobile, house and liability insurance.

So you have a totally free market solution to healthcare that now covers 10 million new people on health policies plus many more by expanding Medicaid to cover those who are below the poverty line... it's one of the biggest improvements to the industry in generations. And it's making more money for insurance companies, not significantly affecting the vast majority of employers (I can link to numerous payroll reports that say employers have not reduced staffing, cut wages or slashed been its because of ACA compliance) and keeping more people alive (rather than killing them).

Yet Republicans want to repeal it, leaving tens of millions of people without any sort of medical coverage and then simply let private insurance companies set their own prices and procedures... which will REDUCE their pool of customers (since everyone won't have to opt in), which will increase premiums and decrease their revenues. No one who has ANY IDEA what the healthcare landscape really looks like is in support of repealing it. Let alone for the complete lack of a plan to replace the Republicans have.

Wasn't there a plan similar to Obamacare that was implemented by Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts, and the idea for Romneycare came from the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank)?

Totally irrelevant. We are five years into the ACA and wait times and ERs are holding the same as any time in history. In addition, overall medical expenses are increasing at the lowest rate in history: www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/09/obamacares-cost-is-falling-as-fewer-receive-coverage-under-health-care-law-cbo-says/

So your comment to the effect of "we need to repeal the ACA to save lives" in relation to long wait times is patently false.



What principles about the bill, specifically, are similar to socialized medicine? The majority of doctors and other medical providers employed by the government? All medical costs paid for by the government? The payment of those medical costs paid primarily through taxes? Because none of these things are true and they are the hallmarks of socialized medicine. Either you don't know anything about socialized medicine or you don't know anything about the ACA.

In terms of people "losing their healthcare," this is a twisted truth that is far off the mark. Insurance plans that had consumer unfriendly aspects, such as lifetime or annual limits to coverage or exclusions of payment due to pre-existing conditions, had to send out notices to all of their members that they had to expressly state to the insurance companies they wanted to remain in those plans. Many people didn't, and so their plans were cancelled... allowing them to enroll in new plans, either through the exchanges or directly from the carrier. The pricing of these plans are equitable to the cost of pre-ACA plans, while also allowing subsidies to those who qualify due to income. So yes, people "lost" their plans... where they lost plans that gave worse coverage and could in turn sign up for plans with better coverage for similar costs and with a chance for great tax breaks. The amount of people who were insured prior to the ACA and are not now is in a fraction of a percent, while the number of people who are covered now who weren't is in the tens of millions.



No they don't. Because just like every property owner must have property insurance, every driver must have auto insurance, every business must have liability insurance, it is terrible policy to let people "gamble." Because when they fail in situations where catastrophic costs force them to declare bankruptcy, it is the government who must then bail them out. Governments have the right to require insurance from those who place themselves in a situation where bankruptcy is extremely likely should the worst happen. In today's day and age, anyone who can incur medical expenses (read as - anyone) is required to obtain insurance coverage.



What? What?! Are you saying ERs are free? Or that people without insurance don't have to pay at ERs? Because neither are true. You either get the $10K per day hospital bill and pay it yourself, you go bankrupt or you default on your payment, where the hospital writes the bill off as charitable loss. Either way, it is never free. I feel like I'm talking to a six year old who thinks using mommy's credit card is free because you don't have to pay cash.



The old system killed people ALL THE TIME. Have you seen the movie Philadelphia? Or The Rainmaker? Or John Q.? These movies are about people who had their health coverage cancelled right on the verge of death because they either became too sick or were found to have pre-existing conditions. And the reality was far from a piece of fiction.

People with serious conditions either were locked into their policies for all time (sometimes tied to being with an employer) or were never able to get coverage, meaning they would face bankruptcy or even death due to lack of treatment.

Outside of that, early diagnosis and prevention are the strongest tools in the fight against countless diseases, yet people who had no insurance or who cou don't afford annual check ups with their existing policies had diseases progress undetected that led to death due to how late the treatment began. The ACA allows not only a wider net of coverage for more people, but also provides free annual exams to anyone, a benefit many private insurance companies were already moving to, due to their experience in reducing healthcare costs through annual exams that drove early detection.

Not to mention other caveats of the law, such as forbidding the practice of hospitals to refuse treatment to injured or sick patients due to not having insurance, or drug patent reductions that cut back how long a drug company to charge exponentially more than it costs to manufacture for life-saving drugs for years.

People died all the time due to the old system.

The free market does an exceptional job at making money. The free market has zero vested interest in keeping people alive or healthy.

An insurance company wants you to pay your premiums and, ideally, drop dead of a heart attack or stroke. Or, more ideally, a brain aneurism (less chance for getting to the hospital and being saved with that). There is no reason for them to keep you alive or keep you healthy. If you do get sick, they employed entire teams of doctors to review every test or X-ray you ever have had done to determine if your sickness started before your policy did so they can say you didn't warn the insurance company beforehand (regardless of if you even knew) so they can deny you your coverage. And if you were sick, they don't want to cover you and would deny your application, leaving you to cover your doctor, drug and hospital bills all on your own.

The old system was very innovative at discovering ways to not pay claims... because that was their business model. Pay less claims than they took in, it was never saving lives. But suddenly, with everyone in the risk pool and no way to deny claims for people who are sick, guess what you are seeing? Communication programs that talk to patients about their health habits. Smart phone apps that help let people know what level of treatment (ER, immediate care center, doctor's office) they need based on their symptoms. Wellness programs that encourage exercise and cover things like weight loss centers or smoking cessation.

When you change the rules so that the free market's end goal is actually the goal you want for everyone (healthy people at a price tag everyone can afford), that's when the innovation works to benefits everyone, not just the individual company.

I'm sorry for your loss, but no healthcare system is going to be able to save everyone. The free market just does a much better job than any alternative.

Say no to both free market and leftist market. A moderate market is the way.

Funny how so many people have forgotten that the individual mandate was originally created as a conservative alternative to single payer.

It's okay. Even we don't understand our own politics.

I wish DWS would resign as chairwoman of the DNC.