Anticipating so many alt-right tears on this thread.
I have no sympathy for people whose political position is to threaten the wellness and livelihood of over 20 million Americans.
The 20 million figure, which is based on flimsy assumptions (although any assumption of this nature is going to be flimsy), is mostly voluntary withdrawals from the market due to repeal of the individual mandate. However, there is no question that many people (just not 20 million) would legitimately see their quality of life reduced by this bill.
Not only that, but Arch supports single payer, which threatens to simply erase private health plans for 145 million americans, without guaranteeing they will have the same access to the level of care that plan was providing them.
It depends on the single payer option you're envisioning, but there is a public option in Puerto Rico, and there are plenty of private insurance companies, some local, doing very well regardless. Furthermore, even in the case of full universal coverage for everyone, private insurance companies would still be needed for foreign travel care and the like.
I like single payer, but a public option would be a great compromise, and a step in the right direction.
Also this:
Just to be clear ,
it's evil when a policy "threatens" the health insurance plans of 20 million people
but it's ok when a policy threatens to extinguish/dramatically scale back the entire private health insurance market, which currently insures 140 million Americans
This is not a binary choice between Graham-Cassidy (or the other repeal efforts) and single-payer. There are other options.
Think of it this way: Every business that offers healthcare to their employees would be over the moon if they could ditch it and the government provide it. It's VERY expensive for them and they would drop that like the plague if they could.
