The Affordable Care Act is ultimately has more positives than negatives for our society.

But first I would like to point out a key flaw which resonates throughout the opponent's argument. The pro side seems to be under the impression that, within a capitalist society, it is somehow reasonable that an insurance company would value the needs of society over their own personal profits. Although this is a great idealistic principal and all, it simply is not the reality within the United States, and the Affordable Care Act does not in any way fix this issue. Instead, it makes the issue even worse, because it inflates the healthcare market, driving up insurance premiums and decreasing the quality of healthcare which each individual receives within hospitals due to a massive influx of individuals who go to the emergency room for non-emergency injuries. This already happens and has happened on a smaller scale with individuals with free Medicaid insurance, thus it would happen with an even greater frequency under the ACA. Thus, while imagining an idealistic reality wherein everyone is selfless and free healthcare works like clockwork is nice, it is not realistic, and leaves us bound for failure. Again, i'm not in opposition to free healthcare; I am in opposition to the very poorly written legislation that is the Affordable Care Act. According to the reputable Forbes. com, furthermore, the ACA is expected to raise regular insurance premiums by as much as 32% . http://www.forbes.com... Now I will go through the Pro's rebuttal and address his points. "Before the ACA, those who had this subsidized insurance could go to medical practitioners who accepted the government insurance program. " --You still can in most cases. Now more people are able to get medicaid and chip, in states where they expanded it. Ironically, states that did not have some of the highest rates of uninsured, like Texas. Unless your employer switches your plan entirely, you are fine. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The main issue with a large influx of individuals newly insured under the ACA to private practices is that the private practices simply will not accept them. As someone who works in a private medical practice, I can tell you that, unless a doctor is truly strapped for money, it is highly unlikely that he or she will accept the brutally minimalist terms and prices which the the ACA insurance policies offer. Essentially, the ACA insurances under-pay doctors so much for treatments that it simply isn't worth it for the vast majority of doctors to accept the insurance plans of these patients. Furthermore, and here's where the poor writing in the Affordable Care Act comes into play: the ACA has caused an increase tax on medical equipment for many private practices. Don't ask me why they did it, it seems utterly illogical to me, but it is quite literally in the legislation, and thus private practice prices will go up as a result of the ACA since the medical equipment will be under heavier taxation. " --Unpaid E. R. visits are one of the biggest contributing factors to our medical expenses, that our taxes end up paying for one way or the other. Many people also put themselves in debt by being hypocondriacs and going to the hospital over every little thing. The plans under the A. C. A. mandate preventative care coverage and certain procedures, as well as capping out of pocket expense and deductibles. Less people will get sick if they are able to get medical care while younger, and less people will frequent the E. R. unless they feel it truly necessary. " ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's simply a matter of fact that if one has free healthcare coverage, one is more likely to go to the emergency room over a minor injury, since they are not the ones paying for it. Again, this has already been occurring with individuals who have been on state-subsidized insurance plans, and it is one of the main reasons why American hospitals are so overcrowded and have such an inferior quality of care compared to other nations such as the United Kingdom. Overcrowded emergency rooms have forced people to wait up to 24 hours for treatment, resulting in even the death of some individuals in the emergency room because they could not be treated in time. . http://www.cnn.com... " --This has been claimed by many, and yet many others claim the opposite. Everyone I have found saying this admits they either didn't look at the exchanges or didn't enter their information to see what subsidies they qualify for. I personally got a gold plan for $50 a month. I'm an A & B student just now being insured for the first time in my life. I have no moral qualms about the fact that someone who makes 5 times as much as me for the same amount of effort or less (like insurance company c. e. o. 's) is helping to pay for it. " -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a very self-centered outlook; just because the insurance may be inexpensive for you, does not mean it is inexpensive for others, and it is quite simply immoral to force a family who makes only $50,000 per year (pre-tax) to pay $5,000 or more for an insurance policy they can't afford under the ACA. Just because you personally are able to afford the insurance policy does not mean a family of four who has to think about putting their children through college can afford to spend $5,000+ per year on a service which they can not afford. --A larger pool of insurees means more accurate forecasts, and lower premiums if healthcare were treated as a necessity. Under free market capitalism, a larger pool means insurers raise rates because they know people will blame Obama instead of them. Which is why single-payer is going to be next on the liberal agenda. Also, it is not a matter of if, but when you will need medical care, and with our current costs, you would be among those trying to figure out how to file a medical bankruptcy (many places, you can't). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will refer you to my previous sources which prove that insurance premiums will go up significantly due to the Affordable Care Act. . http://www.forbes.com... . http://www.cnbc.com... I will also reiterate that although I am not opposed to a free healthcare system in it of itself, I am opposed to the ACA because of its extremely poor orchestration. For example, wouldn't it be far more practical to give families the OPTION of cheaper healthcare WITHOUT forcing them to pay a hefty fee if they refuse to purchase it? Not only is this unconstitutional, it is just simply impractical. It makes no sense to force families to purchase a service which they can not afford or instead pay a fine which they can also not afford. " --No, but you aren't describing the A. C. A. You are describing the average conservative'sunderstanding of the A. C. A. " ------------------------------------------ I am not a conservative, I am a moderate who has healthcare experience and who has actually read the ACA. For this reason, I stand against the legislation due to how poorly it is written. It is important to read the ACA yourself, and not merely listen to what the media tells you about it, because it contains many sections which may not affect your life directly, but which do negatively affect the lives of millions of other Americans. And no, not the billionaires, i'm talking about the middle class. Furthermore, if the pro thinks that $50,000 a year is by any means a large amount of money for a family to be earning, he is severely mistaken. $50,000 a year disqualifies you from government aid programs but also does not allow you to have any luxuries like a "private jet" like the pro claims. It is difficult enough for these families to scrape together enough money to put their children through college. Charging them $5,000 extra per year is impractical and highly detrimental to these lower middle class families. " --Are you saying that you believe lobbyists are looking out for US, and not the people who pay them? " No, I am saying that while lobbyists may oppose the ACA for one reason, the general public opposed the ACA for entirely different reasons, as I have highlighted throughout my rebuttal. "These peoples' sole focus is neither the betterment of America or the prospering of its people, but rather "how can we derail the black man". " The pro seems to have a highly skewed view of companies within the United States and what their priorities are. I will war the Pro against shifting this into a debate on race, as that is off topic. It is not the priority of any company within the United States to "derail the black man". Companies simply seek out profit. Is there anything wrong with this? No. If companies did not have profit as an incentive, they would cease to exist and we would enter a state of communism. I am not by any means an advocate for big business, I am simply stating the reality that we currently live in. "Your opening argument was that E. R. is now more expensive, but you expect more people to go? " ----------- More people will go to the emergency room for non-emergencies because they no longer have to pay anything out of pocket due to the ACA. The pro also did not address my point about how the Norwalk Hospital is threatened to shut down due to the ACA. Thank you, I await your response.