I'm trying to understand the purpose of the ACA law.
The intent, as I understand it, is to drive down costs and provide a safe standard level of care for everyone whether they need it or not, but most importantly, provide for those who didn't have insurance. It also presumes that WITH this coverage, Americans will suddenly become healthier and make better personal choices. This last part is an obvious lie because people are not healthier due to insurance, but rather through personal choices. So let's touch on the other clans of his laws supporters.
First; individuals and families like mine who are gainfully employed already have health insurance and, therefore, cannot apply for ACA benefits. Instead, our insurance provider was forcefully compelled to provide a standard basket of care by law which resulted in our rates going up and, in some cases, a loss of our previous doctors who we're no longer supported by our provider.
No cost savings for those who already have insurance, not to mention the disruption and inconvenience of losing our doctors.
This leaves us all those who did not have insurance in the first place. That would be mostly comprised of the very young, who can be covered until 28 by mummy and daddy's policy at extra cost, and the indigent who, for all intents and purposes, could not afford insurance.
So I am thinking that if these people cannot afford insurance in the first place, then they will be either subsidized by the American taxpayer, OR, pushed into the Medicare/state Medicaid system. Both of which will have to be funded by .... You guessed it, taxes on insurers, medical device manufacturers, doctors, hospitals and at the bottom of the heap, the American taxpayer.
No savings yet.
Lastly, we have been told that this law will reduce rates because the younger healthier groups requiring LESS services will subsidize those older citizens who need MORE services.
The problem I have with this logic is that many of these "younger" individuals who are not already working in good paying jobs that already have insurance do not have the income to "buy" ACA coverage and are instead, "subsidized" or get on Medicare/Medicaid which is funded by.....taxpayers.
Now, if there are 30 million uninsured poor as the Imperial President and his Liberal allies claim, who is going to be paying for their insurance? You guessed it, all of the previously mentioned including you and me.
So based on the REALITY of his poorly thought out, unconstitutional attempt to force all Americans to pay for this act which is being forced on us by a straight party line partisan effort, there are NO savings and the truth is the costs of health care will now escalate to pay for all these millions who will be subsidized or pushed into Medicare.
How is this better? How is this cheaper? How is this right? Who do you think will end up paying for it?
The intent, as I understand it, is to drive down costs and provide a safe standard level of care for everyone whether they need it or not, but most importantly, provide for those who didn't have insurance. It also presumes that WITH this coverage, Americans will suddenly become healthier and make better personal choices. This last part is an obvious lie because people are not healthier due to insurance, but rather through personal choices. So let's touch on the other clans of his laws supporters.
First; individuals and families like mine who are gainfully employed already have health insurance and, therefore, cannot apply for ACA benefits. Instead, our insurance provider was forcefully compelled to provide a standard basket of care by law which resulted in our rates going up and, in some cases, a loss of our previous doctors who we're no longer supported by our provider.
No cost savings for those who already have insurance, not to mention the disruption and inconvenience of losing our doctors.
This leaves us all those who did not have insurance in the first place. That would be mostly comprised of the very young, who can be covered until 28 by mummy and daddy's policy at extra cost, and the indigent who, for all intents and purposes, could not afford insurance.
So I am thinking that if these people cannot afford insurance in the first place, then they will be either subsidized by the American taxpayer, OR, pushed into the Medicare/state Medicaid system. Both of which will have to be funded by .... You guessed it, taxes on insurers, medical device manufacturers, doctors, hospitals and at the bottom of the heap, the American taxpayer.
No savings yet.
Lastly, we have been told that this law will reduce rates because the younger healthier groups requiring LESS services will subsidize those older citizens who need MORE services.
The problem I have with this logic is that many of these "younger" individuals who are not already working in good paying jobs that already have insurance do not have the income to "buy" ACA coverage and are instead, "subsidized" or get on Medicare/Medicaid which is funded by.....taxpayers.
Now, if there are 30 million uninsured poor as the Imperial President and his Liberal allies claim, who is going to be paying for their insurance? You guessed it, all of the previously mentioned including you and me.
So based on the REALITY of his poorly thought out, unconstitutional attempt to force all Americans to pay for this act which is being forced on us by a straight party line partisan effort, there are NO savings and the truth is the costs of health care will now escalate to pay for all these millions who will be subsidized or pushed into Medicare.
How is this better? How is this cheaper? How is this right? Who do you think will end up paying for it?
