[pyoung]

If you think the ACA should be repealed, and you do not have a suggestion as to what should replace it, then you are essentially in support of the needless deaths of tens of thousands of Americans a year. The ACA isn't perfect, I would have preferred single payer, but people were dying from lack of health care affordability and something needed to be done.

[jerf]

Your post simply takes as axiomatic that the ACA will be an improvement over the previous situation.

I do not.

"Something" is not always better than "nothing". There are "somethings" worse than "nothing". You may find that you turn out to be in full support of a "something" worse than "nothing".

Oh, and I do have suggestions about what should have replaced it, but since you'll just then accuse those suggestions of killing millions of poor innocent babies and kittens, why bother sharing them? You're arguing with emotion, not fact.

Unfortunately, ACA has left the realm of emotion and entered the realm of fact... and it is faring poorly. I do not relish this, believe it or not, but the longer it takes for people to realize the size of the gulf between fact and promise, the more damage it's going to do to people. And that is where we are right now with the ACA... damage containment mode. Not "celebrate the end of health care woes in the US!" mode.

[pyoung]

I am actually interested in hearing what your alternatives are. Opponents of ACA have been extremely tight lipped and/or vague about alternatives which generally suggests that they do not have any.

And just because a website rollout didn't go as planned does not mean that the program is fairing poorly. There have already been a number of key changes that have had a positive impact (a ton of my friends were able to maintain health coverage throughout the recession thanks to the age limit increase (26) for dependents). It's not perfect, but doing nothing was not an option simply because it would be a least a decade or more before the issue could have been addressed again.