It isn't, but that doesn't mean that any random change will fix it. Your argument is then as follows:
1-We must do something
2-{This} is something
3-Therefore, me must do {This}
You won't find many of us arguing against the first assertion, but I don't think real numbers say that it's insurance regulation that made the prices go up: It's the fact that the risk pools are full of very sick people. While deregulation would separate the sick from the non sick, it would make sure the sick would not be able to afford insurance at all.
The ACA is working great for people that make so little they get subsidies. It's also not a problem for those of use that work at places that compensate us with well over a thousand a month worth insurance. It's the people in the middle that are in trouble: They either access the ACA unsubsidized, or work for employers that hire a lot of low paid labor, leading to godawful health insurance. I worked at places where the insurance we got was so flimsy, the ACA made it illegal: Huge deductibles, coinsurance along with lifetime maximums that made sure that if you got something bad, insurance would cut you off.
Health insurance in this country has been in an awful trend since at least the Clinton years. the ACA only helped some. We don't need a repeal, but something that subsidizes you too. Health savings accounts and insurance across state lines ain't going to help, but it's going to give us sicker people that just have access to the emergency room and go bankrupt, like in the last of the Bush years.
> The ACA is working great for people that make so little they get subsidies.
Not everyone. In NC alone, there are 377,000 people who make too little to qualify for ACA subsidies yet are not covered by Medicaid. That's a lot of people, and that's just one state. There are 19 other states that also don't have expanded Medicaid.
Even with subsidized ACA, the Bronze plans are pretty shit. Average family deductibles in 2017 will be $12,393, with the average monthly premium for a 40-year-old costing $350. Other than 1 checkup per year and female care, these families get to pay $1,000+ per month in premiums (assuming 2 adults and 2 kids) and another $12,000+ on top of that before their plan does much of anything for them.
Even with a subsidy I don't think it makes sense for a lower middle class family to pay $5,000-10,000 for 3-5 checkups, and $20,000+ if they actually need to use that coverage. Yet they'll be hit with a tax penalty if they don't do that.
1-We must do something 2-{This} is something 3-Therefore, me must do {This}
You won't find many of us arguing against the first assertion, but I don't think real numbers say that it's insurance regulation that made the prices go up: It's the fact that the risk pools are full of very sick people. While deregulation would separate the sick from the non sick, it would make sure the sick would not be able to afford insurance at all.
The ACA is working great for people that make so little they get subsidies. It's also not a problem for those of use that work at places that compensate us with well over a thousand a month worth insurance. It's the people in the middle that are in trouble: They either access the ACA unsubsidized, or work for employers that hire a lot of low paid labor, leading to godawful health insurance. I worked at places where the insurance we got was so flimsy, the ACA made it illegal: Huge deductibles, coinsurance along with lifetime maximums that made sure that if you got something bad, insurance would cut you off.
Health insurance in this country has been in an awful trend since at least the Clinton years. the ACA only helped some. We don't need a repeal, but something that subsidizes you too. Health savings accounts and insurance across state lines ain't going to help, but it's going to give us sicker people that just have access to the emergency room and go bankrupt, like in the last of the Bush years.