[alexose]

> The ACA was a sham; it measures the insured rate, not the ability of citizens to receive the care they need. On that metric, its failing terribly.

Can you elaborate on this? Not because I think you're wrong, but because I haven't been able to find any data one way or the other about health outcomes and the ACA.

[toomuchtodo]

It simply mandates everyone buys insurance. It does not mandate affordable care. Does it matter if you buy insurance if your deductible is $6000 and you never seek medical help until its too late (because you can't afford the copay(s))?

[dragonwriter]

> It simply mandates everyone buys insurance.

It mandates everyone buys insurance meeting minimum standards.

> Does it matter if you buy insurance if your deductible is $6000 and you never seek medical help until its too late (because you can't afford the copay(s))?

By definition, with "too late" as part of the premise, no; but more meaningfully, it definitely makes a difference if you buy a high-deductible plan and only use it to cover catastrophic costs.

(Of course, to meet the minimum standards under the ACA, plans must cover certain, mostly preventive, services at no cost to the covered individual, regardless of what co-pay and/or deductible they have for other services, so that also makes a difference.)

[burkaman]

Right, but are there any studies or statistics on how the ACA has affected actual care provided, or hospital visitation rates, or something? What makes you say the ACA is failing terribly on this metric?