Redundancy?

SO NOW WE HAVE medicare, medicaid, and obamacare...Medicare is the socialistic government health insurance program for the elderly, medicaid is the socialistic government health insurance program for the poor, and obamacare is the socialistic, government health insurance program for...everyone who does not have health insurance.

By the time you get through with all the private health insurance providers, cover the elderly with medicade, and cover the poor with medicare, just who is left uncovered that needs coverage with obamacare? You would think nobody would be, wouldn't you? Seems confusing.

It turns out that even with with medicare and medicaid, before obama care, there are, or were, about  thirty to forty million americans uncovered. But why? Are the requirements to qualify for medicaid too restrictive, too exclusive, or ar millions of americans sumply unconcerned about their own health?

There are two kinds of people; rich, and poor. In this context "rich" refers to anyone who can, in theory , afford health insurance by whatever means they choose, which includes just about everyone from lower to upper middle to wealthy elite economic status.

there are two kinds of people: those who have health insurance, and those who don't. Those who don't are either too poor too afford it, or too irresponsible to understand the need for it.

so, really, don't we need just two health insurance providers, rather than the current four? the private sector, and , say "medicaid".  Are not obamacare and medicare in reality nothing other but redundancies? Many of america's elderly are among america's weathy, and can easily afford coverage within the private sector.

Might it not be preferrable to have a simple, efficient system, rather than a complicated inefficient  one?