This message was self-deleted by its author

[TheKentuckian]

66. Pretty far afield from your own point and my response.

You stated a choice where there is none PER THE LAW, which means that the preexisting situation isn't the cause but the law as it specifically addresses and maintains the situation as an intentional design feature. Not an option of keeping what was had but a systemic requirement that you do.
That isn't choice by any rational definition.

Further, even within that supposed "choice", it isn't true because the employer isn't mandated to maintain what was had nor the carrier to provide it. It is just a part of a sales pitch and untrue on about every level when yes the law could have just as easily made it true in a combination of ways but willfully maintained the status quo and if it is a source of consternation because folks don't like it then perhaps it should be a consideration that the tea leaves were misread about what was really wanted (since you want to insist the design is popularity driven).

And as always, it never was simply a choice between the Profit Protection and Wealthcare Act and single payer because to say that ignores other possible health care funding and delivery systems as well as (and I think most willfully deceivingly) that this is the only possible permutation of a heavily market based reform which is flatly false. In fact, one could use the same template and come out with very different outcomes with might seem like very small differences in some cases to folks accustomed to looking at things in a vacuum or not very closely.