> I see the "I don't disagree" bit a lot on here. You mean you agree, then, correct? Then why not just say "I agree!" Is that so hard for you? Ok then, I disag

> I see the "I don't disagree" bit a lot on here. You mean you agree, then, correct? Then why not just say "I agree!" Is that so hard for you? Ok then, I disagree: a replacement is not needed. What is needed is to amend the original law to address shortcomings. > I really want an answer as to why my insurance doubled in the past few years while all I got was a bunch of bs shoved up my ass, which is all I ever get! I won't speak to your particular case because there are too many variables at play between individual markets. One problem is that you don't know what would have happened had the market, such as it was, been left alone in 2008. I know I'd have been screwed several times over in that case—my provider tried to rescind coverage on my 2yo son just after the child provisions took effect, and the ACA prevented that. Additionally, (and I'm assuming you lean right given your argument) its disingenuous for the GOP and GOP voters to pretend that the ACA is problematic on its merits, when they have been doing everything in their power to ensure it fails for the last 9 years. States that refused the medicaid expansion have only themselves to blame for the substantial number of problems in those states. You can't yell "because FREEDOM" and cut your nose off to spite your face, then complain because you got a nosebleed.