Now with Obamacare I am paying $260 for the same level of coverage.
How is that helpful to me? I'd love to hear some positive stories, because I'm just paying more and making less in my pocket, while people who don't work are getting health care for free.
Not only was I employed full time, I was restarting school. I lost everything. Tuition I paid, loan privileges, I had to sell everything, my credit sucks. Until the ACA went into affect I avoided doctors, even for big stuff because I was terrified of getting my family dropped.
I can go to the doctor and many people I know from cancer support groups can get insurance now, I'm not just talking about those who don't work, it was really hard to just get a company that would cover you when you've had cancer multiple times.
I know it sucks for some people but it's helping so many people who really needed the help.
Another way to think about it is that you're paying $120/mo for the guarantee that you'll be able to obtain coverage for your spouse and children in the future. That guarantee did not exist at any price prior to ACA.
I'm not sure how to respond to your last point, because people who don't work have always received health care for free. The backstop for health care financing has never been "no health care". The backstop is bankruptcy, which isn't an issue for the unemployed poor.
By extending health care to people who can't afford it, the ACA has probably lowered your costs over the long term. That's because the most expensive possible way to provide coverage is through emergency room visits, which is how the uninsured obtain coverage.
By which time a generally very treatable condition has become acute, and then very expensive to treat no matter what.
- Your phrasing of "people who don't work" implies to me that you feel disdain towards them, and that they could work, but are just lazy. (and now they can "freeload" health care too!) If this is not the case, then I would change the phrasing to something like "people that are unemployed."
- "What's in it for me?" isn't always the best measure of the value of something. For example, Bill Gates can afford to pay all his health costs out-of-pocket. Would you agree with him if he said that we should dismantle the entire health insurance industry because he doesn't need it?
- You haven't explained what level of coverage you think that the "non-working" people had before. Do you think that their level of coverage has improved or declined?
> Now with Obamacare I am paying $260 for the same level of coverage. [...] How is that helpful to me?
Insurance companies now have to account for the risk that if you get sick in a chronic/expensive way that they can't find some technicality to drop you. Whether you see this as a benefit or not is probably correlated with your belief that those things "happen to other people."
Some people are getting subsidized care but the only people getting it for free are those who are eligible to enroll in Medicaid. Not all states have agreed to increase their Medicaid rolls however. Plus, as a Medicaid patient, it is not that easy to find doctors, especially specialists, who are willing to see you. I had a Medicaid patient who had surgery for a wrist fracture a few weeks ago. The orthopedist who operated on her would only agree to see her in follow up in a separate clinic for 'caid patients, and that appointment would be in February. Fortunately we were able to encourage the surgeon to see them sooner. Im guessing that's not the kind of healthcare you want, even if it's free.
...people who don't work are getting health care for free.
From the article:
Critics of the Affordable Care Act have
often warned that the program would be unfair
to the young because it limits the ability of
insurance companies to charge higher rates to
older customers, who tend to be sicker. But
young adults show the largest reductions in
being uninsured of any age group.