3 ms·
>Had the ACA gone further and actually provided a single payer system, I'd consider the block on denials based on preexisting conditions a win. Your other opti
by lotsofpulp 1y ago
>Had the ACA gone further and actually provided a single payer system, I'd consider the block on denials based on preexisting conditions a win.
Your other option was to continue as things were, with fewer people getting less healthcare. Would that have been more of a win?
- _heimdall 1y agoYes, either we have a risk-based insurance system or we have a single-payer system that isn't insurance at all. Being stuck in the middle is worse than both extremes in this case.
- lotsofpulp 1y agoHow is it worse when more people have received access to more healthcare? Or is that also in contention?
- mothballed 1y agoI'm not sure if it's in contention, but efficiency is also important. Life isn't an optimization for health care. At the middle class and below, people are already spending most their earnings on essentials. Maybe you can alter healthcare so people are paying through the nose (either through highly regulated private entities coupled with incentives/mandates, or through taxes) but more people are covered, and so now they are less able to afford housing, good education, healthy foods, child care, and other stuff. Then they are not necessarily better off.
- _heimdall 1y agoIs your only metric for success the number of people technically covered by a healthcare program? That seems easily gamed and doomed to fail.