Quote:That's one way to look at it. Another is, that it was only considered great if you had a ton of money. If you didn't well, sorry about your luck. I find that despicable. When money is the factor that decided weather a person gets well or not, than that is literally having the power of life or death in their hands. Only those hands are billionaires.

 

I am not opposed to haves, having more but not at the expense of the have nots. 

 

The level of care provided prior to the ACA is going to look like a utopia compared with what is coming.  If you think money isn't a factor now that we've got this wonderful ObamaCare, you've been swimming in the KoolAid.  All this has done is to make healthcare more expensive, and less available.  Rationing will come sooner rather than later.  You'll be pining for the good old days.  I work in the industry, so I know a little something about what ObamaCare has done to the system, and it's not good in any way, shape, or form. 

 

There will still be the haves and have nots.  The only difference now is that when the have nots who still don't have insurance decide they need to seek a doctor's assistance, they're going to be penalized with fines from the IRS.  The ACA was supposed to make healthcare more readily available, and more affordable.  Heck, Affordable is in the name of the law.  Check out the rates people are being charged, then look at the crap coverage they're getting.  All the while, insurance companies that were willing to play ball with Obama are still profiting, and if they do happen to lose money, no worries.  The government is already prepared with a bailout using more borrowed money. 

 

Yeah, ACA is a great thing for this country.  When it's fully implemented, we'll be a third world country. 

---