Prior to passage of the ACA, the numbers range from 11-18% uninsured, depending on who's studioes you believe. Most of those were not uninsurable...they were simply uninsured. many of those uninsured were by economic choice. They chose to invest in tattoos and video games and cheetos and tobacco and any number of convenience items rather than investing in health care insurance. Choice.
Tattoos?
Seriously?
Before the ACA, denial rates for individual coverage were around 20%. This was also increasing significantly with each passing year. Plus, that individual care was incredibly expensive, and did not cover much. I know that first-hand, by paying through the nose for a plan that had a $10,000 deductible and a 20% copay.
Plus, the people who received coverage via the Medicaid expansion? They weren't going to be able to afford coverage by giving up their "tattoos and video games." The cost of an Xbox 360 wouldn't even cover a single month's premiums for an individual on a high-deductible plan. (Xbox 360: $400. 2010 average premiums for an individual: $416)
That means 82-99% had somehow managed to figure out how to obtain health care. And MOST were actually quite satisfied with their coverage.
Half the US got its insurance through employers. (This was dropping over the years, btw).
Another 25% got it through government programs (e.g. Medicare, Medicaid, VA).
11% had individual or other coverage.
By the way, care to prove that people were satisfied with both their coverage, and the direction of health care coverage?
Was health care perfect? No. Some things should have been changed. Torte reform should still be imposed.
Malpractice and "defensive medicine" only accounts for about 2% of medical costs.
Much of the excess spending is basically trying to keep older people alive longer, a process that typically extends life while deteriorating quality of life.
Insurance companies SHOULD be forced to not drop clients based on legitimate healthcare needs.
Yep.
The problem is: Imposing that kind of requirement on insurers raises their costs, which increases everyone else's premiums. It incentivizes them to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, too, since they know they will be on the hook for those costs.
That's why the ACA has the individual mandate. This distributes the costs across a larger pool of ratepayers, that includes healthier people. It also reduces the freeloader problem, as otherwise you have people only signing up for insurance when they need it, and dropping it when they think they don't.
As for the uninsured, those that were unable to financially secure healthcare should have been placed on state/fed funded healthcare. We didnt need to blow up a system...we needed an 11-18% solution.
Yeah, about that? Nothing actually got "blown up."
There wasn't a huge raft of hospital closures, or doctors quitting, or pharmaceutical companies shutting down. There weren't less people getting coverage through their employers. The premium increases had slowed for many years, and most of the screaming about premiums was exaggerated -- or a result of Republicans doing everything they could to kill the law, rather than help improve it.
Of course, this is now biting Republicans in the ass. They've spent 8 years complaining about the ACA, and characterizing it as the worst thing ever, and now they need to replace it. Unfortunately, they have cut off pretty much every option that would work. The ACA was based on conservative principles, and worked fairly well in Massachusetts; but they can't just tweak the ACA, as they promised repeal and bashed the law. They can't go with single payer or true socialized medicine, as that would never fly ideologically. And anything else they do will result in people losing care, the wide-spread abandonment of the exchanges, and big increases in premiums.
Ive heard it suggested that whatever system congress passed/passes/omposes, that first and foremost they and their immediate families should be subject to. Id go for that.
News flash! Congress has been on the ACA since 2014.