No. The Affordable Care Act is better than what come before and is better than the single payer approach. There are definitely parts about the law that need to be changed. It requires everyone to get health insurance. It provides subsidies to those who cannot afford it. Each state is required to build an exchange to create a functioning marketplace in their state. If a state can do better by covering more people at a lower cost, the state has the option to implement those changes
Repeal the law, do away with any attempt at the single payer system, reduce regulations, and let the free market do its thing. stop insurance companies from being able to control the medial field at the same time, up date tort reform to reduce cost. You should be able to go to the hospital or doctor with a need for a millionaire bank account.
Before Obamacare, we let the free market work. It got us insurance and health care that costs more than the rest of the world and delivers the same or similar results with more people uninsured. Insurance companies have contracts with medical providers. If they do not like what insurance companies do, they can write new contracts or do not accept the insurance companies' money. The free market is still working. You need to expand coverage before you can deal with costs.
Also, tort reform does not work. Sure, sounds OK. It will not be effective. Capping liability costs does not work, Clink on the link Texas did that and premiums did not decrease and coverage did not increase.
Actually Texas as done tort reform and guess what it has drawn more doctor into Texas and has actually reduced the cost to some degree, but getting government out of it would help a lot. Did you know if you live in Vietnam and you become sick you can just go by the pharmacy who will give you what is considered prescription drugs in this country without the need to see a doctor. As for Free market this system has not been under free mark every since Kennedy opened up HMO which changed the system and drove cost up.
Nope, there are more doctors here because of population growth, not because of tort reform. Where is the evidence of reduced costs? Tort Reform sounds like a good idea but there is no proof that it lowers costs for those who use health care. See my link above. The cost of insurance in Texsa continue to increase at same rate as the rest of the country after tort reform.
The HMO ACT of 1973 did not no such thing. Before HMO Act, most employers who gave health insurance benefits had insuanrce called traditional indemnity health insurance. It was more like a PPO. The difference between traditional indemnity health insurance and the HMO is a physician that acts as gatekeeper. Because HMOs have this gatekeeper, HMO are usually cheaper than traditional indemnity health insurance. HMO ACT of 1973 stops states from barring doctors from HMOs and required employers with 25 employers or more who offered insurance to provide options on traditional indemnity health insurance and HMOs. The market share for HMO increased because HMOs were usually cheaper. HMO ACT of 1973 helped with the marketing of HMOs, and did not affect the costs of health care.
You must have not been working in 73 I was most health insurance provided by employers were 20/80 major medical. The only reason employers even offered health insurance was because of the Government Act in which they limited wages so company started offering things like cars, health insurance. Again Government involved in things they should have stayed out of. Just like the minimum wage.