The ACA burdened some of us; it was a godsend to others. There were winners and losers under the pre-ACA system, different winners and losers under the ACA, and still different winners and losers under the House bill. Do you think the pre-ACA system was fairer? Or doesn't fairness enter into it?
LB - just who in your view should be paying the cost of care for the sickest among us?
To defend this is nothing short of idiocy.
It simply isn't sustainable. It is far less sustainable than what we had before.
To wit: If Republicans do nothing at all, the ACA will implode. That is how very unsustainable it is, not even a decade from it's evil inception...
The middle class cannot maintain mandated, useless insurance, with sky-high costs. it's not that they simply won't do it, which ought to be enough. They CAN'T DO IT. All you've done is take away insurance from the very people who are PAYING for it.
The sickest among us WERE ALREADY COVERED by Medicaid. I know, because I was one. Long term, undiagnosed, uninsurable. All that meant was that I had to lose all my stuff (other than my house and one car), and then the whole thing was covered carte blanche. ALL of it, FREE to me.
So stop pulling that ridiculous bullshit sympathy card. If you are ill and dying, and not receiving health care in the United States, it is only because you don't want to receive it. I am no proponent of welfare or medicaid, especially having experienced them, but to throw dirt in the air, and say folks are dying from lack of being able to receive health care, is nothing but a damn lie.
