Dale M. Posthumus

I would prefer to scrap it and start over. It is poorly designed, pushed through too fast for anybody to begin to fathom its impact, done in a purely partisan manner, built too fast without transparency, and being poorly implemented. The more likely scenario is the "fix it" approach, but it will take a lot of effort and political capital on both sides. It will take toning down of the rhetoric (both sides) and a real willingness to craft a bill that, ideally, the majority of both sides could accept.

The success of making more people aware of their eligibility for Medicaid is a good thing, but it comes at too steep a cost. That alone could have been accomplished for a lot less money.

As a society, we have important decisions to make that underpin any form of health care system. Is health care a fundamental right? If people abuse their health (smoking, drinking, drugs, obesity, risky behavior, ect.), will we force changes upon them in the name of the public good? We have been running that battle for decades with food stamps (now SNAP). We give people SNAP cards and limit some of what they can purchase. But, if people choose to eat other than a healthy diet (buy soda and snack foods, trade/sell their SNAP-purchased fruit and vegetables with others for less healthy foods), to what extent do we force them to do otherwise? There are already reports about using ACA to "force" people to stop smoking (similar to Mark's comment). One argument put forth is that if the Govt is subsidizing your health insurance and overall costs of health insurance are negatively affected by risky behavior, then the Govt or employers or others have a right to force you to live "better" (as they define it). How far are we willing to go?