![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
paft.livejournal.comFrom I Was an Obamacare Guinea Pig, by Sally Kohn:
This option will cost my family $931 per month — $408 per year less than my previous crappy plan and a $5,000 savings in deductibles. A big win for me and my family financially and in terms of what’s covered.
Plus in the past, I spent several days looking for and comparing insurance options. Under ObamaCare, even with the slow and sticky website, I spent a total of four hours — to save over $5,400. That kind of return on investment would make Warren Buffett drool.
If the ACA ends up working the way it should --and it looks so far as though it will -- I guess die-hard right wingers are going to be reduced to arguing that thousands of people going without health insurance and medical care is somehow a sign of a free society. (Perhaps the term "meta-freedom" will be invoked.)
Good luck with that, guys.
Just to make sure we're all on the same page here...
This OP is in FAVOR of the ACA. I realize, given the tenor of some posts here, it might not be clear to some that observing a significant reduction in insurance costs, and therefore, actual access to health insurance for many Americans is a good thing. So, let me hereby state, unequivocally and emphatically, that, yes, that is my opinion. Increased access to healthcare -- good.
Decreased access to healthcare -- bad.
The ACA, so far, looks like it's increasing access to healthcare for many Americans. Therefore, I think it's a good thing.
And I think that the more Americans see how the ACA works, the more popular it's going to get. Which bothers a lot of Republicans and laissez-faire types.
To which I say -- "tough cheese."
Hope this is clear.
This option will cost my family $931 per month — $408 per year less than my previous crappy plan and a $5,000 savings in deductibles. A big win for me and my family financially and in terms of what’s covered.
Plus in the past, I spent several days looking for and comparing insurance options. Under ObamaCare, even with the slow and sticky website, I spent a total of four hours — to save over $5,400. That kind of return on investment would make Warren Buffett drool.
If the ACA ends up working the way it should --and it looks so far as though it will -- I guess die-hard right wingers are going to be reduced to arguing that thousands of people going without health insurance and medical care is somehow a sign of a free society. (Perhaps the term "meta-freedom" will be invoked.)
Good luck with that, guys.
Just to make sure we're all on the same page here...
This OP is in FAVOR of the ACA. I realize, given the tenor of some posts here, it might not be clear to some that observing a significant reduction in insurance costs, and therefore, actual access to health insurance for many Americans is a good thing. So, let me hereby state, unequivocally and emphatically, that, yes, that is my opinion. Increased access to healthcare -- good.
Decreased access to healthcare -- bad.
The ACA, so far, looks like it's increasing access to healthcare for many Americans. Therefore, I think it's a good thing.
And I think that the more Americans see how the ACA works, the more popular it's going to get. Which bothers a lot of Republicans and laissez-faire types.
To which I say -- "tough cheese."
Hope this is clear.
