For over three years I took my grandfather to his medical appointments, managed his prescriptions, and otherwise helped to facilitate his care. I also got to see the medical bills that came in after those appointments and prescriptions. Having served in the military, and being eligible for Medicare, my grandfather rarely had to pay any significant amount for his medical treatment. But those bills made me wonder what it would be like for other people, people without Tricare (military health insurance) or Medicare. It was then that it occurred to me that the only reason I had health insurance was because my parents were employed at large companies. But what about the families who had lost jobs in the recession, or worked for smaller businesses. What would happen to them if they got sick? What would happen to the elderly if Medicare goes bankrupt, which is predicated to be only a matter of time? It is for those children, those people going through hard times, those elderly citizens, that we should all support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The PPACA places reasonable restrictions on insurance companies, strengthens Medicare, and offers an affordable path to healthcare for those who were falling through the old patchwork of programs such as WIC and Medicaid.

The first logical question here is, “Why would I need protection from the insurance companies?” when they’re supposed to be on my side. One of the things that you should’ve been losing sleep over was something called the “lifetime limit.” The lifetime limit is a contractual policy that allowed insurance companies to stop covering your lifetime medical expenses once their costs reach a certain value, frequently $1 million. This means that even if you were fortunate enough to have health insurance, even if you had been diligently paying your premiums for years, after you got too expensive for the insurance companies, they could just stop paying. During the average person’s life, it is/was unlikely that that limit would be hit; for someone who contracts a more serious illness, such as cancer, it is quite common. But isn’t that what insurance is for? Isn’t insurance there to protect you from unlikely, but high, expenses? Apparently not. Outlawing these limits is one of the accomplishments of the PPACA. It is a protection we can all sleep better for having.

So what other self-protections have insurance companies been burying in your contract? There used to be a little clause known as the pre-existing conditions clause. It stated that any conditions you were diagnosed with prior to purchasing your insurance would not be covered. It also allowed many insurance companies to simply turn down (or greatly increase premiums on) potential customers on the basis of a pre-existing condition such as high blood pressure. This is, again, a gross breach of ethics on the part of the insurance companies. For example, let’s say that Bob has had health insurance for years through his employer, Company Inc. Unfortunately, Bob is laid off and no longer receives health insurance, nor can he afford a private plan. A year later, Company Inc. rehires Bob who has also been diagnosed with high blood pressure in the meantime. Under the old system, his application for new insurance could be denied, or his rates could be increased by 50, 100, or even 200 percent. The PPACA outlawed this practice, and limits the factors that determine premiums to basic descriptors such as age and gender.

This new protection does create a slight problem, known as the free-rider problem. Any smart consumer could now avoid purchasing health insurance until they became sick, and would then be guaranteed low premiums despite their illness. To solve this problem, the PPACA enacted the controversial “individual mandate” or, as it is officially named, the shared responsibility requirement. This so-called “mandate” does not force anyone to purchase health insurance. It simply imposes a tax penalty, which is far smaller than most insurance premiums, on those who do not purchase insurance despite having the financial means to do so. It is not, by any means, a clause that I expect anyone to truly enjoy and love. It is, however, a necessary evil in order for the PPACA to function properly and provide the protections and affordable insurance that gives it its name.

Next, consider what those insurance contracts fail to mention. For a start, very few insurance contracts stipulate a limit on how much of the premiums can go to “administrative costs.” As any Fortune 500 CEO can tell you, “administrative costs” are frequently a euphemism for large, upper-management bonuses. According to Healthcare.gov, the government’s informational website about the healthcare, the PPACA requires that 80% of insurance premiums go towards medical care. If you are paying the insurance company, it is only fair that they be using your money to finance your insurance and not their CEO’s no-doubt-frugal nest egg.

Another aspect that benefits insurance companies is the pure complexity of the insurance plans. There are deductibles for individuals vs. deductibles for the families. There are in-network rates vs. out-of-network rates. There are surgery rates vs. office-visit rates. For prescriptions, rates may vary based on pharmacy and whether the drug is a “name-brand”. Office-visit co-pays may vary based on the specialty of the doctor and whether there was a referral. Once you consider the fact that these are all variables in every insurance plan, it is clear that there are too many options for the average consumer to understand. Without understanding, consumers cannot easily compare insurance plans. Without comparison, there is no competition between insurers. Without competition, prices rise. Increasing competition is, therefore, a main goal of the PPACA. That is why the law sets up state-by-state insurance exchanges and informational websites that allow consumers to compare various plans, and insurers, side by side. According to the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, this new competition will reduce premiums by 7-10%. The PPACA turns complexity into simplicity.

Medicare changes are also a major piece of this legislation. If you followed the 2012 Presidential Election with any closeness, or simply watched TV in the months leading up to the election, you will likely have heard criticism of the PPACA relating to Medicare. There are claims that Medicare has been “cut” by $711 billion. This is a lie. It is true that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Medicare expenditures are expected to fall by $711 billion over the next decade due to changes resulting from the PPACA. It is not true, however, that these savings result from cuts to health benefits. Instead, these savings result from two key areas: a strengthened fraud policy and lowered administrative costs. These savings also help to strengthen the long-term fiscal outlook of Medicare, which has been decidedly shaky. These savings have even been hailed by AARP as a piece of “landmark legislation [that] is already improving the health and financial security of our members and all Americans.” It is worthy of note that AARP is non-partisan, and would only endorse this law on the condition that it benefits AARP’s constituents, seniors. Despite claims to the contrary, the PPACA greatly strengthens Medicare’s fiscal outlook by creating savings totaling over half a trillion dollars while not cutting its health benefits programs.

But savings are not the only change to Medicare resulting from this law. Prior to the PPACA, seniors suffered what was known as the donut hole. The Department of Health and Human Services says that, after a certain dollar amount was reimbursed for prescription costs each year, Medicare would greatly increase the percentage of costs passed on to seniors, sometimes to as much as 86%. This is the same type of morally-corrupt policy as the lifetime limit. The PPACA fixed this donut hole by lowering the maximum percentage passed on to 25% in order to protect seniors from being suddenly hit with drastically-increased prescription costs partway through the year. The PPACA also increased the coverage of preventative measures such as yearly physicals and mammograms. In the end, these changes will allow seniors to put their health first, regardless of their financial situation.

Finally, the truly landmark component of the PPACA was its creation of an affordable insurance plan for those who did not qualify for programs such as Medicaid, and yet who could not afford the rising insurance costs. According to CNN, 7.3 million children and 28.4% of adults ages 25-34 had no health insurance in 2010. This is a staggeringly large number. To respond to this issue, the PPACA created government-subsidized insurance plans that are going to be offered on the state health exchanges. The plans are NOT a government takeover of healthcare. They are partnerships with private insurers where the government pays for part of the premium, and only are offered to people who are unable to pay for the entire premium by themselves. This is not socialized medicine, but rather something many of this law’s opponent’s lobby for as a new Medicare model: premium support.

In conclusion, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is an elegant solution to a healthcare industry that is anything but. By protecting and reinstating the inalienable right to pursue a happy, healthy life, this law serves as a guide for how healthcare should be managed. The goal is not wealth, but health. The goal is not to find clever loopholes and clauses that protect insurance companies, but to simplify plans into something everyone can understand and purchase, using what is now a standard in medical treatment: informed consent. Affordable healthcare is something we should all come to expect, just as we should expect the right to petition or the right to bear arms. Use your right to vote to protect this law by electing representatives who support it.