Yes indeed the goal is admirable but it may prove to be too costly.

That ACA did not address costs, just coverage.

I have three ER nurses in the extended family and, so far, the ACA has had no significant impact on folks using the ER as their primary source of medical care.

As to extending coverage to include preexisting conditions and the like that is really not very difficult IF you are prepared to throw tons of money at the problem - which is what the ACA did.

Our existing plan met the requirements of the ACA so we were able to keep it.

BUT we had to pay a good deal more.

The first year after the ACA our rates went up $300 a month.

Recently they jumped another 23%.

So other people are now covered because folks like us pay for it - which I suppose is good.

Yet the rates are so high that we are investigating changing to a plan that simply provides "catastrophic care".

That will result in less money going into the "pool" that pays for others.

If significant numbers did likewise then what would happen?

The "old" system may have had problems but the ACA did little to address those.

Frederick