Need a good response to this Freeper poster on the ACA

[DireStrike]

65. The question was, who is hurt by the ACA?

People like me who have to pay more are hurt financially. Previously we were subsidized, as you say, through emergency room care.

I'm also not objecting to younger people subsidizing elders. There's no other way to run a healthcare system (though as B2G is saying, this can be a very hard sell in America today.)

I'm objecting to the poor subsidizing anyone. A detail I left out of this particular conversation is that my income is $20-25k. Exactly where it falls will determine whether I get an affordable anti-bankruptcy plan (under 22k, I think?) or whether I pay the penalty. Right now it's looking like I'm making slightly more than the lowest subsidy cutoff. I really can't imagine how a household with a median income can even come close to affording those plans, if these are the subsidies I'm getting at the lowest end of the spectrum!

The ACA does not do much to lower costs. Some people are complaining that rates will in fact skyrocket next year. That remains to be seen. Instead, it seeks additional funding for medical care from all users, including those who can't afford it.

I should point out that there is no way in this scheme that I get affordable healthcare. What I get in a best case scenario is anti-bankruptcy insurance. Even if I take out a plan, it doesn't provide me with a normal care due to deductibles and co-pays. In fact it ONLY helps if I accumulate absurdly high medical bills. (I've heard something about "preventive care" being free, but I don't know what that means or if it's true. And if it were, it's probably still cheaper to pay out of pocket.)