Are Trump's Policies Destructive?

Wrong, dear lady. Trump says (post election, about 6 days ago): "Get rid of ObamaCare, we'll come up with new plans. But, we should keep preexisting conditions."
You'r experience may or may not be representative. Regardless, ACA has built in 'vouchers' attached to medical costs that supplement the premium payments for the poor. Read you policy and ACA website - I'm not insulting you! Most of us don't read policies and if we do, we get confused by the arcane language.

@Sacron22: vouchers are taxable as income..
my sister has a 750 a month voucher for a policy with a 5000 deductible that covers nothing... yay!

Your sister gets ~$5,000 a year in supplemental government help - and you want more. Okay. How will dismantling ACA help your sister get more government money? @onestarrynight:

@Sacron22:
my sister got 750 dollars a month to pay to some no name fly by night insurance company that didn't exist before this program..
for this scam policy she paid taxes on 9000 in subsidy income for a policy she can't afford to access unless she pays the 5000 dollar deductible first....
there are a lot of flaws with this program that proponents refuse to recognize..
it helps lots of people but it's dramatically flawed and cost much much more than originally thought because of crap like this..
Trump doesn't have to do anything because the program is well on its way to imploding all on its own..

Obamacare certainly has not worked for me I pay more than twice what I paid before and I now have to meet a $6,600 deductible before I get anything paid. I've always agreed everyone should have access to affordable health care but this was a freaking disaster. We would have done better to add everyone to the federal government group policies. They pay only about $200 a month and have fantastic coverage. they still cold have passed a law making it mandatory to allow kids to remain on their parent's policies until age 26 and to make it illegal it refuse coverage for preexisting . But obamacare was designed to topple the healthcare system. The architect of it said so.

It's sad she chose a 'fly-by-night' insurance company. I'm do not want the government meddling in my own choice. But you obviously needed and want government oversight to protect you. While I don't believe in looking to the government for help with most decisions, I respect your reliance on government protection.
FTY, The plan does cost more than originally projected. But that is not because of 'fly-by-nights' and the people who select them. Cost increases are primarily due to Rx costs and older people in the the pgm without younger people. @onestarrynight:

Us citizens were not given a choice. Get the plan or be penalized. By the time people pay the premiums, co-pays and deductibles, they can't afford the care

@Sacron22: this was a company she was placed with when she applied for the subsidy through the exchange..

I agree. If the original idea of 'single payor' had been approved the ACA would have been modeled on public (Federal) employee plans. But that was impossible politically. So we got a half-measure. No, the program was not designed to topple the system. It was designed to balance private insurance costs with government aid for poor people to bring ~20 million uninsured people under insurance. This is admirable, although the flaw in it is private insurance still running things which drives up costs. You don't seem to realize that ACA hasn't raised costs, the private insurance cos. have. Your situation is sad. Not sure how ACA 'caused' it, however. @Katielass:

@Sacron22: Bull crap. The higher costs are due to the fact that we now have older, sick people covered--remember pre-existing conditions?-- while younger, well people have decided not to enroll in the plans because it's cheaper to pay the penalty. The cost of drugs has nothing to do with this.

health care costs to the government are out of control and WILL lead to a collapse of the government's ability to finance itself within the next decade, probably in less than seven years..
that's a fact...

Yes, Miss Katielass, I said that old v young was a reason for higher costs. Before you post again, please try to read the text to which you are responding. Okay? @Katielass: