Yes, it had a downside. Is it right to harm someone else (someone innocent) in an attempt to help others?
We are talking public policy here. It's impossible to devise
anything significant that will help others that has no downside, i.e. will harm someone else, so the standard is absurd. So of course it can be "right" to harm someone else TO help others. It cannot be any other way.
My sister, a single mother, makes a decent wage from her own business, and she used to have what was deemed a substandard plan by the PPACA. She didn't pay a lot for it, but the times her kids were sick or injured, it payed a substantial amount. The PPACA took that plan away but she did not qualify for a subsidy because she made too much. Why couldn't she afford the premiums then? Because she has a large mortgage payment that she has to pay for by herself and she's paying back taxes to the IRS because her no-good ex-husband took off after he got in trouble, leaving her to pay all the penalties. They have yet to find him. She said that after losing her substandard policy, she really needed to save the little money she had to pay for any of the kids' medical bills, but then she was penalized for not being able to afford the premiums and that little bit of money was taken away from her as well.
No one can address that situation because there aren't enough details to make an informed judgment on anything. So we'll just take it as a given that your sister was hurt. But in another hypothetical, the single mother business owner making over $80k/year with a child who has a disability, or who has had breast cancer, cannot get insurance at all, EVER, because the pre-existing condition makes her and/or her family like toxic waste to an insurance company. How are we as society supposed to weight those two cases - your sister versus that cancer survivor? We can't address your sister without leaving that other mother out in the cold, and we can't address pre-existing conditions without a mandate, so how do you suggest we solve this moral or ethical dilemma?
The solution CANNOT be - any change
must not harm anyone in any situation because that is
impossible. In the alternative to the impossible, on what ethical or moral or even practical basis do we evaluate changes in public policy?
Obamacare made a big mistake in thinking that people who make the same wages have the same money left over after paying bills.
I agree with that in principle. Just for example, someone making more than $80k like your sister is likely in the top 10% of income in my area, although only top third nationally. And it would pay for a great house here, but in maybe not even a 1 bedroom flat in Manhattan or SF or Seattle without difficulty. So, sure, it would have been good to adjust that stuff for standard of living, but that increases the costs. And for the subsidy limits, should we give HIGHER subsidies to those with great big houses with large mortgages and who are delinquent on their federal income taxes? I know it might not be your sister's fault, but how can you write that into the law?
It's nice to insure the poor - but not at the expense of people like my sister who struggle to pay their own way.
OK, but you're not stating an alternative. That was my original point. The ACA sucks. TRUE! The pre-ACA status quo sucked! The post-ACA GOP alternative WILL suck and there will be millions of stories like your sister's of people harmed by the GOP "replace." So I guess the GOP should not do any replace since no matter what they come up with someone will be harmed?
