I have, among other things, asthma. I'm a 1099 contractor; I buy my own health insurance. Prior to the ACA, which people keep threatening to revoke, I could not buy insurance that covered my asthma. I tried. I shopped around a lot. The same company that provided complete coverage at a previous employer had a pre-existing condition rider on the same policy.
After the ACA, my policy now covers my pre-existing condition (Yay!), but I'm paying $750 or so per month for it. If I could not afford $750/month, my options would be considerably narrowed. (And that's before the prescriptions for my pre-existing condition.)
Yes, I go in, I get treated. But my situation demands a pretty hefty bill anyway, or potentially a very large bill. Possibly enough to make me consider not going to get treatment.
Another point is that the people with lower incomes qualify for subsidies under the ACA.
Also theres none of this in-network vs out of network chaos. Emergency care always covered, doesnt matter where you go.
It feels like youre trying not to understand how a public option could be better.
This statement assumes a public option (which varies wildly depending on the one) is better.
The parent comment wasn't about a public option or getting a card. It was a complaint that recieving care at a provider is extremely complicated. At that stage of the process, that claim is incorrect.
Or (until recently), you go in for surgery where the surgeon is covered, but then get billed for an out-of-network doctor that consulted without anyone asking you.
I'm glad we now agree that the current system in the USA is in no way like this.