This message was self-deleted by its author

[Ms. Toad]

74. I provided an option between now and then.

The ACA isn't ideal, and I have always argued against implementing it in stages. I also argued for the gap policies - which were not included AT ALL in the initial bill.

You need to stop blaming the ACA for the pre-existing problems which it did not fix immediately. If the ACA had not passed you would not be eligible for coverage come January, and you would be in worse shape.

I don't know anyone who thinks the ACA was the ideal legislation. But it was better than what we had - which your very recent experience under the pre-ACA rules should tell you.

The last significant change in access to health care (after numerous failed attempts to accomplish any change) was implemented ~2000. ALL that change (HIPAA) did was to guarantee that if you lost your job you were still entitled to be issued a policy IF you had already been covered, IF you hadn't created a gap of more than 63 days and IF the job-related policy was good enough - but the insurance company could charge you whatever it wanted. No prior insurance? - tough noogies. A gap of 64 days? tough noogies. Can't afford it? tough noogies - and if your inability to afford it creates too long a gap, you have to start from ground zero to build up your right to be issued a policy.

This change guarantees access to everyone. It puts limits on what can be charged (by capping premiums relative to the expenditures - those refund checks people have been getting for a couple of years when their company charged too much). A gap in coverage does not mean you forfeit your right to be issued a policy. And those on the lower end of the income scale get free or reduced cost coverage.

Not perfect - we need a single payer system. But compared to what we have had - far better.