Are we allowed to write pro ACA posts on this forum?

ears and say "la la la la la la la la la la la, I can't hear you"

After decades without health insurance, he finally has coverage--and it is free because of the ACA Medicaid expansion. He had a pre-existing condition that made insurance impossible to get--and he could not afford any regardless.

The ACA finally gives him access to primary care doctors, instead of risking his life waiting to be sick enough to be seen in the emergency room. He is finally getting life-saving treatment.

ACA, it helped a tremendous number of people, especially compared to what it was before.

The argument used by some was that it should have been single payer. Single payer could not pass, the blue dogs would not have voted for it, and they had a two year window to pass something or it would be business as usual, no insurance for those with pre-existing conditions, and a whole list of reforms.

Should it be better? Of course, but this is what we have within this environment, and if more Democrats can get elected to Congress, not only can it be improved, but eventually move toward single payer. Anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention is aware of the republican resistance to ANY meaningful healthcare reform. The number of times they have tried to repeal it is an obscenity, and they have no alternative. What they are effectively saying to people is you don't deserve healthcare unless you have the means, fit into a very specific criteria of no pre-existing conditions, or are covered by an employer who provides it as a benefit.

Some people have complained that their rates are to high because they don't qualify because of their income. While some of that argument is valid, especially if one is right on the border, just above the income limit for a subsidy, before the ACA, for a 55 year old person WITHOUT pre-existing conditions, a fully comprehensive health insurance policy would cost close to 1000/month.

Yes, they could get a far cheaper policy, IF THEY HAD NO PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS, through a catastrophic policy or a very high deductible, but in general an equivalent Silver plan policy or above, would NOT be cheap

At least as good as what my husband had been getting through his job. Since he was working mostly to get insurance for the two of us - we were both essentially uninsurable until the ACA passed - being able to buy insurance and get a subsidy let him retire. He hated his job and it was bad for his health.

Unrelenting stress, no breaks because of perpetual under staffing, and standing on concrete floors for 8-10 hours a day is not good for anyone much less for an over 60 year old diabetic. Since he retired his number for everything have gone into the normal range for the first time in years. He feels better and is able to enjoy life. He is again the man I married instead of a stressed, cranky, unhappy person.

The policy we've signed up for 2016 is better than what we had last year and it is cheaper.

While the ACA may not be perfect it is better than nothing which what we had before.

Not a completely free choice in the matter.

I imagine what is driving people to sign up through the ACA is that they want health coverage and don't want to die like the 45,000 Americans who died each year for lack of health coverage before the ACA was enacted.

Not to downplay the fact that 8.3 million are law-abiding citizens.

signing up if 8% of your income is less than the premium for the Bronze plan. There are some other exclusions also where you avoid signing up for the ACA, and not be subject to a penalty