Please read Joekv's response. The article points out some important problems with Obamacare. Problems that perhaps could have been resolved by having a public option, an option that, unfortunately, the right barred us from having. And problems which certainly would have been alleviated with a single payer system, which is what we should have, but which was never even an option given the political morass called the U.S..
But, as Joekv's response explains, that's not really the operative point of comparison. The optimum point of comparison is the condition of people such as those portrayed in the article before Obamacare. It was worse.
Moreover, the complaint that some find it would be cheaper to forego the plan and just pay for their deductible care they decide not to take because they can't afford on top of their premiums.... those people are gambling on their health, and, being people with a great deal of health issues, that's not very smart. I sympathize with them, of course, because they should have better plans they can afford, and that, of course, just means what we all know - the ACA can be greatly improved - but it does not mean that the ACA is worse than what we had before the ACA.
And speaking of that appropriate "before the ACA" comparison - here's the key fact" "before the ACA" you were also always at risk of losing your doctor because your insurance coverage could change. Many of us not on ACA have always been and will continue to be exactly in that boat.
Those of us with insurance plans through our employers are always at risk of having our plans changed and our doctors not participating as a result. Clearly, Obama never meant "you could keep your doctor" to mean "you could keep your doctor" moreso than anyone is guaranteed of that who already has insurance coverage. He meant "you could keep your doctor" subject to the same caveats that already existed for the conventionally insured in the free market as opposed to less than those that already exist for the conventionally insured in the free market.
Now if you want to criticize Obama for what he should be criticized for, including but not limited to his failures on the environment, immigration, Guantanamo, CDC's recently allowing that Dallas nurse to board that plane, and the surveillance state we live in, and PROTECTING THE CIA ON TORTURE, and the general failure to prosecute Wall St. for their crimes, please count me in.
But count me in as one who at the same time realizes that all American presidents have major problems, that Obama shares the blame on some though not all of these with the Bush administration, and that Obama is far from the worst of our presidents, has been outstandingly good for the U.S. economy (which - big surprise (he said ironically) - is still a disaster) and is the subject of gross, racist, unfair and dim-witted criticism from an obstructionist opposition (an opposition that makes his triumphs all the more impressive!) constantly.
There are those of us who try to be fair and to think critically about all public figures, including Obama. And you will find that those of who do so are also apt to be fair and think critically about what we read in the news, even if it is the Times.
Updated On: 10/21/14 at 11:01 AM
