j.r. leonard

I’ve been pessimistic ever since 2010 when we lost the house after passing the affordable care act. We got punished for improving people’s lives.

It’s a little weird to assume for other people what improved their lives, no? Also, all things considered the ACA was probably a wash

A wash on what? It reduced the number of uninsured people by millions. It saved lives.

I’m not making an assumption, there are all kinds of data points on this.

There isn’t a person who doesn’t need healthcare.

ACA allowed people with pre-existing conditions to get insurance (a +), financed by raising premiums on other people (a -) Those who buy their own insurance, but make too much for the subsidy have been made worse off. Maybe the tradeoff was worth it, but there was a tradeoff

How would you have done it then? How do you get growth insurance for more people and protect pre-existing conditions without a law similar to this one?

I’d start with a viable public option. But I’m not trying to debate healthcare policies. I’m pointing out the hubris in assuming that you can decide for other people what constitutes an improvement