j.r. leonard

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?

Health*

According to a McKinsey study, premiums rose 10% before the ACA and 6% in the following years. Ppl who shopped on the exchanges saved a lot. But most of the newly insured was through Medicaid expansion, not exchanges plus subsidies.

By the way, here is an articulated view on the problems with the ACA and why some voters might not love it: http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/2018/11/what-neither-republicans-or-democrats.html?m=1 …

Could give bigger subsidies to the middle class but that would require increased tax revenue. In any case I don’t know how we can modify it without having the legislature.

Any method of expanding coverage was going to require healthy people to subsidize sick ppl, and require folks with more money to subsidize those with less money. Otherwise you just keep a system where the poor cannot afford insurance and the sick get rejected when they apply.