Obamacare did do some good things that needed to be done, but essentially, everything about it was a bandaid intended to kick this shitty system down the road to the next person who had to deal with it. But hey, at least health care companies can't just turn you down because you have Diabetes or are too fat anymore.
[http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/10/obamacares-...]
(My own story: I had my gallbladder out in 2004, and from that time on was denied personal health insurance for BS "pre-existing condition" reasons...until Obamacare.)
But while the implementation is pretty poor, the idea behind it is significant: everyone should have access to health care. Not just tied to a job, not just if you've got lots of money. It isn't working great, but that's the goal at least.
I know there are still lots of people who come back with opposition to that idea (even in these comments a few people are trotting out the whole "universal health care is slavery" junk), but whatever, there are people who oppose all kinds of things. Obama shifted the playing field of expectations, and good things will come as a result of that. That's all I'm trying to say.
Probably you were denied personal health insurance not for BS reasons, but because the insurance companies knew they would (probabilistically) lose money insuring you. But now under Obamacare, if they participate on the exchanges, they are obligated to sell to you. So, shockingly, we see that most companies operating on the exchanges lose money doing so.
Your inability to get coverage before and the problems that Aetna is having today are very closely related.
I was merely pointing out a connection from his personal story to the general topic of conversation that a lot of people don't seem to realize.
Let's find a way to fix that? This doesn't even touch how some hospitals / networks must buy from a specific vendor, or how vendors sell packages which include things the buyer doesn't need (at the same exorbitant prices).
The insurance companies are the ones paying for that $50 dot. Well, after their discounts it's probably a $10 dot.
It was either Time or Newsweek a few years back which had an excellent long-form article on where health-care spending goes. As I recall, it's not the insurance companies: it's the hospitals, physicians, nurses, other staff and an army of hangers-on and middlemen.