The guest column by Joe Sammen demands a response.
I find it very ironic he cites studies that the repeal of the ACA without replacement would lead to millions uninsured and replacement …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
If you're a print subscriber, but do not yet have an online account, click here to create one.
Click here to see your options for becoming a subscriber.
If you made a voluntary contribution of $25 or more in Nov. 2017-2018, but do not yet have an online account, click here to create one at no additional charge. VIP Digital Access Includes access to all websites
I find it very ironic he cites studies that the repeal of the ACA without replacement would lead to millions uninsured and replacement must contain certain protections. Where was this concern when millions lost coverage at the implementation of the ACA in the first place? The implementation of the ACA had to rely on deception (Pelosi: "We have to pass the law to find out what's in the law"), and lies (Obama: "If you like your plan you can keep you plan; if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor") to become law in the first place.
Yes, pre-existing coverage and adult children staying on parents' plans until 26 are the good parts of the ACA. And they should be part of any new replacement plan. But the answer was to not upend coverage for 100 percent of the population to solve a problem for 10-15 percent of the population. There were much better alternative fixes for the 10-15 percent that lacked coverage than what the ACA did to everyone else.
But Obama put his ideology ahead of what was good for the country and we ended up with what we have today - a failed ACA that has to be repealed and replaced.
Other items that may interest you
We have noticed you are using an ad blocking plugin in your browser.
The revenue we receive from our advertisers helps make this site possible. We request you whitelist our site.