Twice as many people think the flaws in the Health Care law should be fixed, than think that the law should be repealed as Republicans want.
The Republicans would rather leave health care to the Insurance companies, with no controls on how much they can raise their prices, no controls on how much of the money goes to the policy holders, no controls on who can be dropped, or controls to limits to expenditures.
The Republican Insurance company sponsors want to continue getting record profits, and be able to deny service to anyone that would cost money. They have bribed most Republicans like Orin Hatch, and many Democratic representatives to fight any controls. The wellbeing of the public does not enter into their equations. Without the new Health Care Law, as many as 129 million people (nearly half) of the people could be denied any health care because of preexisting conditions.
http://www.healthcare.gov/center/reports...The Affordable Care Act is admittedly flawed. If it was done correctly they would have simply made Medicare universal and we would only have 3% overhead instead of the 20-30% with the insurance companies. There would be no new bureaucracies, no new complicated laws. We would get our health care for much cheaper (nearly half as much) because we would eliminate the middlemen.
The health care law is complicated because they tried to please the Republicans and keep the Insurance companies in charge instead of making it a government program. They included the controversial Federal Mandate (a Republican idea) because making a wider pool would bring costs down.
Despite these flaws the Affordable Care Act did have a lot of cost controls and allowed experimentation so the States can determine the best way to save money. The idea was to give the Affordable Care Act a few years to work (Most provisions start in 2014) and then if the States figured out better ways to do things they could incorporate their ideas (in 2017).
Some of the States thought they could come up with better ideas before then. Obama being a pragmatic centrist listened to the objections of the States and agreed. He said he would welcome any ideas to save money on health care.
Now the States are free to come up with any ideas so long as just as many people are covered, and so long as it isn't more expensive than the Affordable Care Act.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/w...The big danger here to the Republicans is that with 50 states each experimenting to provide better service cheaper, something might work. They are hoping that health care will be a disaster, but with so many different options it is almost certain many of the states will be successful. Some individual states can now come up with Single payer Systems, or a non-profit state insurance program that can provide affordable quality care that the insurance companies can't compete with. Then when the other states see how much better and cheaper that care is the idea will spread. This is the worst fear of the Republicans - that government can actually do Health Care well. Vermont is already considering the Single Payer approach.
http://www.csgeast.org/content.asp?pageI...If successful much of the East Coast would then follow their example. Watch what Oregon and California do next. Oregon's Governor Dr. John Kitzhaber is one of the most knowledgeable politicians when it comes to health care and has lots of good ideas.
So the question now is should most of the people in the country be allowed to get the cheapest insurance possible as the Democrats want, or should half the people in the country be denied any coverage at all as the Republicans want? Will regressive ideology and corporate profits prevail, or will the states be allowed to determine the most cost effective way to best care for their citizens?