Dear Editor,

With regard to the 3/8/17 “Our Opinion” post, where it was stated that, “Overall, Obamacare has been bad for more people than it has helped,” several issues come to mind.

This general issue, especially in light of the GOP’s current efforts to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act, certainly merits serious and fact-based analysis and discussion given how it impacts us all. And clearly various “pros and cons” have become evident with the ACA since its implementation 7 years ago, which is not particularly surprising given that such health care issues are indeed quite “complicated” — a reality which apparently came as a surprise to some GOP leaders.

However, this sweeping assertion that it “has been bad for more people than it has helped” or is a “disaster” cannot be taken seriously unless supported by factual evidence. It does indeed seem that claims which have no supporting evidence whatsoever or obviously contradictory evidence are readily asserted and even accepted by some as “truths” these days (or, as some prefer, “alternative facts”), but down this path where fact-checking and critical thinking are brushed aside lies noting but delusion and disaster.

Perhaps the negatives of the ACA do indeed outweigh the positives, perhaps not. There are undeniably some facts on the positive side which need to be considered as we try to figure out what would be best for our nation’s citizens, including: 1) over 20 million more people have health care coverage now than before the ACA; 2) the rate of premium increases is now less than it was before the ACA; 3) 80% of premium payments must now go for medical treatment rather than administrative costs and profits; 4) coverage cannot be denied for pre-existing conditions; 5) preventive care is now covered, which reduces long-term costs; and, 6) individuals can be covered on their parents’ plans until the age of 26.

So precisely what facts on the negative side outweigh these and support this assertion that the ACA has “been bad for more people than it has helped”? A thoughtful response including supporting evidence would be helpful in furthering a meaningful discussion of these critical issues.

It was also disparagingly noted in that “Our Opinion” post that some aspects of the ACA (e.g., subsidies allowing people to afford coverage; Medicaid expansion) are now viewed by many as “entitlements.” Well, imagine that – citizens in what is considered one of the most highly developed countries in the world feeling “entitled” to adequate health care, which virtually every other developed nation in the world provides to its citizens, often through a single-payer/“Medicare For All” system. It seems sad that we remain “exceptional” in this way, doesn’t it?

Respectfully submitted,

Dale E. Buonocore,

Warren