You have to look at generally. Obviously some people it will not benefit, and others it will. I have not read the whole bill, so all I have for reference is Massachusetts. In Mass you can choose to keep your original provider, but you do have to have basic coverage. That may cost you more, but at least your covered. There is no age limit for accidents. Kids get hurt everyday. I was only 35 when my life fell apart. What if I had kids? What about your kids, and theirs? It will work out in the end. All the other countries are doing well, and like EF said, we'll do it better. Its the American way.
Again, a high-deductible plan is great. It gives you coverage. The maximum out-of-pocket I would ever have to pay is $5000, 100% is covered beyond that. If I had an accident, I could afford $5000 just fine. And my healthcare expenses for the last 10 years are less than $5000, I can save way more than $5000 by not paying high insurance premiums for an expensive plan. It pays for itself for a healthy person, and catastrophic accidents or sicknesses are still covered just fine.
Sure, if you're in and out of the hospital, you need a plan that covers more routine visits and care. You might need prescription coverage. I don't. This law removes my freedom to choose the insurance that is right for me, and takes money out of MY pocket, and hands that money straight to an insurance company that you have already admitted you don't like.
My plan, that I choose, it perfect for me. It saves me money, it more than pays for itself even if something happens and my costs go to the full deductible because it's much cheaper, and it still covers me even if I suddenly needed $1million in medical care.
Why can't I keep this plan? What right does the government have to tell me that the medical insurance I choose for myself isn't good enough?
----------------------------
Heck, let's look at it the other way: not only do they fine you if you don't have enough insurance, they tax you extra if you have too much insurance! The "Cadillac" health plan tax! Let's say I want the most amazing plan there is, where everything I get done at a doctor's office is covered 100% and I never have to pay out of pocket, and includes all kinds of amazing extras that make me feel more secure. Now the governemnt says I should've have that insurance pla, that it's too much coverage for me, and are going to tax me on it.
The government is perfectly will to tax me if I don't have enough coverage (even though it is the perfect coverage for me), and at the same time tax a person if he wants too much coverage (even though that coverage may be perfect for him). Oh, unless that person with a "Cadillac" health insurance plan gets taht plan from a labor union. Amazing: two people with the exact same health insruance plan, and ones get an extra government tax because he's not a member of a labor union, while the other gets to skip the tax expressly because he's a member of a union. All men created equal, eh?
When did it become ok for the government to decide how much insurance is too much or too little, and tax people who get either, or levy taxes based on union membership?
------------------------------------
And again, you've said you liked Medicare, that's great!
This bill, as signed by Obama, cuts Medicare in multiple ways. Your coverage WILL get worse.
