How Much More Does Medication Cost In The US?

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Assuming these numbers are even accurate—a lot more.

At this point, it's a fact of life that drugs in America cost considerably more than they do elsewhere in the world. Way back in 1999, then-Congressman Bernie Sanders personally drove Vermont women over the Canadian border to buy drugs for breast cancer. Over the last few weeks, there were many people who wanted to personally drive over Martin Shkreli, the founder of Turing Pharmaceuticals.
 
I had a medication I needed for IBS and it was going to cost me $900. Can't believe the drug companies are allowed to gouge patients like this. But a lot of things are backwards in the USA. :(
 
Not surprised I knew that drugs were way more expensive in the US. If you want anything related to medical care its going to cost you top dollar in the US.
 
I had a medication I needed for IBS and it was going to cost me $900. Can't believe the drug companies are allowed to gouge patients like this. But a lot of things are backwards in the USA. :(

We were looking at epipens for my son, the one that was prescribed was going to be $950 after insurance. Told the Dr hell no, then she gave us a mfgr coupon that dropped the price to $5.

WTF?
 
The guys who pushed the medicare part d through the house such as Billy Tauzin fought to prevent the US government from negotiating with pharma. They also fought to prevent us peon citizens from importing drugs from countries that pay much less. Those same reps immediately left after the bill passed to go work for the pharma lobby.

American citizens are paying exponentially more for drugs than any other country in the world. That same party that screams free market said fuck you citizens I am doing what is in big pharma's best interest. There is no better example of wealth redistribution from the poor and middle class to the wealthy than what those law makers did to the American people.

httphttp://www.cbsnews.com/news/under-the-influence/
 
Get rid of the ability to patent drugs, stop catering to big pharma, and the problem will fix itself. But instead they're working on the TPP and it's actually going to make it worse, and make it worse for the rest of the world too. But this is what capitalism is about, and for some reason it's what people actually seem to want.
 
Do not forget that 95% of the medications are developed in the US because they can charge the HMO's to pay for the R&D then sell the generic versions to other countries after they have paid off the R&D. Most countries that try to sell drugs back to the US are selling expired meds they bought from the US and the countries are trying to get rid of defective meds. Canada is really bad about this. Some simply steal the formula from the US patent office where anyone can read the formulas and make their own version and refuse to pay for the development. Personally I think only the designs not the science should be patentable but undercutting the person doing the R&D usually means no more R&D or they simply have to keep making new designs that may be better or worse.
 
Hate to say it because people don't want to hear it but Healthcare is not a fundamental human right.it is a privilege for people who can afford it.
 
Hate to say it because people don't want to hear it but Healthcare is not a fundamental human right.it is a privilege for people who can afford it.

That's the capitalist way of thinking. It really should be a right, and it's something where money should not even be involved. This is where the health care system here in Canada is much better. If you are ill the last thing you want to have to worry about is if you have to sell the house after to pay for it, you just want to feel better again and not be in a financial hole for the rest of your life.
 
Hate to say it because people don't want to hear it but Healthcare is not a fundamental human right.it is a privilege for people who can afford it.

And that's why people need pitch forks and sticks with fire to attack people like Martin Shkreli for price gouging. Remember that Daraprim drug that's like ‎£1 in the UK while in the US it's $750.

The rich are calling and they're saying you better get universal health care before we start charging $750 for a pill of Aspirin.

GTY_MShkreli_MEM_150923_16x9_992.jpg
 
Hate to say it because people don't want to hear it but Healthcare is not a fundamental human right.it is a privilege for people who can afford it.

I hope you die because you're unable to afford treatment for some major medical crisis (HIV/AIDS). Your loved ones will be left wishing they had more money to pay for more, or exotic, treatments to keep you in the world of the living. After all, Mr Shkreli needed a couple more Ferraris in his garage.
/s


/not really
 
I'm a little confused -- I guess [H]ard|OCP is now becoming oft|SJW...?!
 
Insulin, without insurance and without subsidies, can cost you $2500 per month. It costs less than $50 to produce it.

Why? because they can. And they will tell you that to your face.

There are no patent expiration fears on Insulin, even though it's well over a century old. Why? A near-criminal clause in the patent system that free's them from patent expiration because insulin is based upon a live system.

And you think Lawyers should be on that bus...
 
That's the capitalist way of thinking. It really should be a right, and it's something where money should not even be involved. This is where the health care system here in Canada is much better. If you are ill the last thing you want to have to worry about is if you have to sell the house after to pay for it, you just want to feel better again and not be in a financial hole for the rest of your life.

Yeah, I'm a republican but I lean towards, heaven forbid, the democrats on this deal. I'll still never vote for one, but they have a better vision IMHO when it comes to medical care.

Let me be clear. Obama's Plan is NOT the cure. Right now it's the disease.
 
Yeah, I'm a republican but I lean towards, heaven forbid, the democrats on this deal. I'll still never vote for one, but they have a better vision IMHO when it comes to medical care.

Let me be clear. Obama's Plan is NOT the cure. Right now it's the disease.

Obamacare was never meant to be the solution -- in fact most likely it was meant to make the problem worse, so bad that the only other option would be socialism. It's called the Cloward-Piven strategy.

And the system we have no has little to due with capitalism and everything to do with crony corporatism -- that is, instead of competition in a free market, we have corrupt politicians rigging the market so they can choose the winner. Moving to a socialist system will only make it worse as it will give government bureaucrats even more control over the systems they're already responsible for destroying.
 
Wasn't that suppose to be the purpose of Obama care health care for all?

The GOP wanted nothing to change in healthcare...and the Blue Dog Dems wanted a bailout for Big Insurance companies in their own states...meanwhile 80% or so of citizens think we pay too goddamned much for medicine and medical care.

What we got out of ACA was a start and it still needs worked, but it is a bit better for most than what we had (remember pre-existing conditions?)
 
Seems like Illegal drugs have somehow become cheaper to buy and are easier to acquire than their legal counterparts these days... This war on drugs seems to be extremely profitable for both sides, and neither want this cash cow to end.
 
Get rid of the ability to patent drugs, stop catering to big pharma, and the problem will fix itself. But instead they're working on the TPP and it's actually going to make it worse, and make it worse for the rest of the world too. But this is what capitalism is about, and for some reason it's what people actually seem to want.

That's a bad idea. Drug research is very expensive and risky (i.e. they frequently fail to work).
However, it's ridiculous that the feds can't negotiate prices (or reimport drugs, for that matter).

The other alternative is that all drug research is funded by the government, but then you'll quickly find that some countries (perhaps ours) are footing the bill for the rest of the world.

IMO, we can quit being stupid and still allow patents.
 
I'm a little confused -- I guess [H]ard|OCP is now becoming oft|SJW...?!


Agreed. The problem in the U.S. is we pay too little for drugs. How is it that Anti-Biotics are so cheap? They save peoples lives! Surely our lives are worth a couple of thousand bucks a year. Got AIDS? Million a year seems reasonable to me. Alzheimer? You're old. Die already.
 
That's a bad idea. Drug research is very expensive and risky (i.e. they frequently fail to work).
However, it's ridiculous that the feds can't negotiate prices (or reimport drugs, for that matter).

The other alternative is that all drug research is funded by the government, but then you'll quickly find that some countries (perhaps ours) are footing the bill for the rest of the world.

IMO, we can quit being stupid and still allow patents.

Allow patents on what?

In the US you are allowed not only to patent a configuration of 1s and 0s, patent a business concept, but also patent a configuration of atoms. Whereas in other developed countries (with cheap legit drugs) you are only allowed to patent a process that gets you that configuration of atoms.
 
Obamacare was never meant to be the solution -- in fact most likely it was meant to make the problem worse, so bad that the only other option would be socialism. It's called the Cloward-Piven strategy.

And the system we have no has little to due with capitalism and everything to do with crony corporatism -- that is, instead of competition in a free market, we have corrupt politicians rigging the market so they can choose the winner. Moving to a socialist system will only make it worse as it will give government bureaucrats even more control over the systems they're already responsible for destroying.
We got this system, because Republicans wouldn't vote for anything and the democrats from competitive districts (the ones that were 1 term reps no matter what they did) wouldn't go for the system Obama wanted.

What we got was a Republican plan that was presented as an alternative to the one Clinton put in 20 years ago.
 
We got this system, because Republicans wouldn't vote for anything and the democrats from competitive districts (the ones that were 1 term reps no matter what they did) wouldn't go for the system Obama wanted.

What we got was a Republican plan that was presented as an alternative to the one Clinton put in 20 years ago.

I've heard so many times though that "health care is now affordable" so doesn't that mean it's working the way they wanted it to? Nevermind that for the same monthly premium I now have the honor of a $7000 deductible which I never had before -- I guess it's "affordable" just like the "great leap forward" (killed 100 million inncoent people) and "new era of responsibility" (budget plan for the highest deficit spending since WW2). Heck why don't we just move to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea -- with a name like that it must be a utopian free society!

If you want to see how "government pays for everything" makes things more affordable, check out the cost of college. It has risen more than triple the rate of inflation and yet degrees have become less and less valuable. Obviously that has nothing to do with the fact that the government just gives out subsidies hand over fist to anyone who comes asking.
 
Do not forget that 95% of the medications are developed in the US because they can charge the HMO's to pay for the R&D then sell the generic versions to other countries after they have paid off the R&D. Most countries that try to sell drugs back to the US are selling expired meds they bought from the US and the countries are trying to get rid of defective meds. Canada is really bad about this. Some simply steal the formula from the US patent office where anyone can read the formulas and make their own version and refuse to pay for the development. Personally I think only the designs not the science should be patentable but undercutting the person doing the R&D usually means no more R&D or they simply have to keep making new designs that may be better or worse.

That's not actually true.
#1 Novartis Swiss
#2 Pfizer American
#3 Roche Swiss
#4 Sanofi French
#5 Merck & Co. American
#6 Johnson & Johnson American
#7 GlaxoSmithKline British
#8 AstraZeneca British
#9 Gilead Sciences American
#10 Takeda Japan

This is just pharmaceutical companies that manufacture & develop.
 
Hate to say it because people don't want to hear it but Healthcare is not a fundamental human right.it is a privilege for people who can afford it.

It's not about privilege or "human rights". It's about free market principles being destroyed by industry influencing law makers to prevent competition and price negotiating which is a fundamental and absolutely necessary part of free markets.

Damn dude do some research before going to the right wing talking points on the first play of the game. Smh...
 
The amount of ignorance in this thread concerning the affordable care act is pretty astounding. I just recently got my accident, health and life insurance license and had to learn the aca inside out. Despite its flaws, it is in general overwhelmingly better than the previous system which had people with zero health coverage and being forced to sell everything they owned just because they got sick. The things people are mad about with the higher deductibles and such, you can thank the GOP and their adamant refusal to compromise because they liked bankrupting people for drugs. Sorry to burst your little delusional bubble, but almost all the problems with the ACA are the fault of republicans. But like I said, it's still better than what it was before.
 
The biggest mistake in the ACA is the lack of tort reform. Tort reform should have been the first thing done, to fend off the blood-sucking lawyers.
 
The biggest mistake in the ACA is the lack of tort reform. Tort reform should have been the first thing done, to fend off the blood-sucking lawyers.

The only people who would have benefited from that are the scumbag CEOs.

ACA was about consumer pricing...and tort reform would have done less than zero about that. Basic 8th grade business sense tells anyone that much. Tort reform presumes mega-billion-dollar companies are fcking Mother Theresa and give out free money.

Seriously. If you're a million or billion dollar company or a small business, and the government suddenly makes $10 or $100 or $500 million USD in business expenses go away what are you going to do? Lower your prices and therefore lower your profits, or fucking pocket the money offshore where you don't even have to pay taxes on it? I mean seriously, tort reform was a pathetic ploy to fool the naive and ignorant.

All that even presumes tort is why medical expenses in the USA are so high...which well, is not the case. But even assuming tort was the problem-reform would only screw over consumers more and not do anything about consumer pricing.
 
The biggest mistake in the ACA is the lack of tort reform. Tort reform should have been the first thing done, to fend off the blood-sucking lawyers.

Studies have shown that tort reform would bring costs down about 3%. This doesn't even dent the overall problem of the highest health care costs in the developed world by double or more.
 
The amount of ignorance in this thread concerning the affordable care act is pretty astounding. I just recently got my accident, health and life insurance license and had to learn the aca inside out. Despite its flaws, it is in general overwhelmingly better than the previous system which had people with zero health coverage and being forced to sell everything they owned just because they got sick. The things people are mad about with the higher deductibles and such, you can thank the GOP and their adamant refusal to compromise because they liked bankrupting people for drugs. Sorry to burst your little delusional bubble, but almost all the problems with the ACA are the fault of republicans. But like I said, it's still better than what it was before.

Try explaining that to most people. Quite a few places around the world have a universal access to healthcare system YET somehow we managed to royally screw it up.

The original ACA had a single payee system but the republicans hated that as it was "un-American" it was "socialist" and how would all the other insurance companies make money...
it was cut up in soo many ways we ended up with a tattered system BUT it facilitated in providing affordable care.
 
The amount of ignorance in this thread concerning the affordable care act is pretty astounding. I just recently got my accident, health and life insurance license and had to learn the aca inside out. Despite its flaws, it is in general overwhelmingly better than the previous system which had people with zero health coverage and being forced to sell everything they owned just because they got sick. The things people are mad about with the higher deductibles and such, you can thank the GOP and their adamant refusal to compromise because they liked bankrupting people for drugs. Sorry to burst your little delusional bubble, but almost all the problems with the ACA are the fault of republicans. But like I said, it's still better than what it was before.

Is that fair, given that they didn't need Republican support to pass it and it was passed without any Republican support? I'm not say Reps aren't part of the problem, but I Democrats were a problem too and there were Democrats that didn't vote for it either.

We have what we have, because that's what it took to get enough Democrats on board.
 
The biggest mistake in the ACA is the lack of tort reform. Tort reform should have been the first thing done, to fend off the blood-sucking lawyers.

We've had tort reform in TX for more than 10 years, and it did nothing to bring down health care costs.
 
Is that fair, given that they didn't need Republican support to pass it and it was passed without any Republican support? I'm not say Reps aren't part of the problem, but I Democrats were a problem too and there were Democrats that didn't vote for it either.

We have what we have, because that's what it took to get enough Democrats on board.

It's fair and mainly because I'm not talking about ACA in it's initial incarnation. It had some problems at first, which is why even many Dems weren't on board. However most of those issues got worked out early and then it turned into a Reb stonewall mess. Now do bear in mind that I pretty much think both parties are full of pathetic scumbags, so I am in no way defending the dems here. However reality was when it came to ACA, it was a good plan and could of been amazing had both parties been more concerned with the American people and not "how much can we dick over the other party".

Some of the provisions in ACA even after all the mess are downright amazing and they constantly get glossed over because people still want to play the political bullshit game. Hell, some GOP candidates are STILL claiming they will repeal it if they get in office, Not work on improving it, but repeal it. That should be a giant red flag to anyhow who isn't a giant asshole. It isn't socialism to look out for the health of your nations citizens. There is a middle ground where insurance companies (I work for one), can profit and citizens can expect reasonable healthcare.So Since I am on the topic, let me point out a few highlights that people either don't know, or ignore.

First This idea that small employers are "Required" to pay for healthcare for their employees is utter bunk. They aren't. So we can just throw that out the window now. Small employers now simply have More options that allows them to offer insurance at prices they couldn't before if they so choose.

The big penalty that everyone is clamoring about isn't what everyone seems to think. That penalty is the exact same cost as the lowest priced coverage available as an individual. Additionally if your income falls below a certain threshold where you can't afford it, then there are provisions where the premiums will be subsidized or cover the cost entirely. This allows people who are working multiple part time jobs to actually afford insurance where they couldn't before. As a Very important note, this also put a stop to the past where if you had to have medicade, then you basically had to sell everything you owned. So basically the only way you get hit with any penalty is if you are pretty much a dumbass. There are of course exemptions for religion, Native americans etc. The short of it is, If you can't afford insurance you aren't going to be penalized, you are going to get what you need. On no planet is that ever a bad thing.

Other Provisions that the ACA brought in that were badly needed.
1) Ends Pre Existing Condition Exclusions for Children. This was HUGE and people just gloss over it. This put an absolute stop to insurance refusing to cover children because of pre existing conditions.

2) It added provisions for Young adults to be allowed to be covered on their parents plan up to age 26. Basically they can stay covered this way while in college instead of having to page huge rates for their own policy while not employed.

3) Guaranteed rights to appeal a denied payment.

4) A Near Complete Ban on lifetime benefit limits, meaning your insurance company can no longer say "Nope, we aren't covering your heart condition you developed after years of paying us because that is too expensive".

5)Insurance companies must now publicly justify rate hikes.

6) Stops certain insurance plans from denying emergency service claims. This was largely aimed at certain HMO's who were notorious for denying out of network emergency claims just because someone got into an accident while on vacation.

There are quite a bit more as well, especially in regards to preventative care and pregnancy. There is also quite a bit of stupid in it as well, it isn't perfect. The basic idea though is that Young people and Old people especially should be able to see reasonable healthcare without being bankrupted. Additionally Working adults should have a reasonable expectation of being able to afford basic healthcare and shouldn't fear an unknown health issue or an Accident ruining you financially forever. I think the short of it is this; Any person who votes for a candidate who supports repealing ACA instead of continuing to make it better, really is a giant prick. There is absolutely ZERO reason outside political BS to be against the ACA. It is a great system that absolutely improved health insurance in the US. It has some flaws and yes it needs more work. However it isn't socialist, it isn't communist and it is a damn shame that people are letting their idiotic political beliefs blind them to this fact.

Just remember this boys and girls..Before the ACA came along, if you wanted health insurance after losing a job your only choice was COBRA. For those that this doesn't ring a bell, just know that most normal people couldn't this if they wanted to. Cobra Premiums are absolutely INSANE. Now you actually have choices for individual insurance that aren't going to break you financially if you aren't rich.
 
It's such a cluster fuck. My wife's meds are a couple grand a month. We have a high deductible plan, so we just pay out like a mofo until we hit our max out of pocket a handful of months into the year.

To make it even more ridiculous, they won't even pay for the dosage she's prescribed at those prices. She has to accept pills that are too large and cut them with a razor. It's criminal.

Thanks Obama.
 
Still don't get why the US didn't adopt healthcare system like in France or Japan where govt picks up often around 65-80% and you're liable for the difference.
 
It's such a cluster fuck. My wife's meds are a couple grand a month. We have a high deductible plan, so we just pay out like a mofo until we hit our max out of pocket a handful of months into the year.

To make it even more ridiculous, they won't even pay for the dosage she's prescribed at those prices. She has to accept pills that are too large and cut them with a razor. It's criminal.

Thanks Obama.

That isn't the fault of ACA, that is your insurance. You do have options you know, you don't just have to stick with an insurance that clearly isn't working for you. Also there is a little thing called "supplemental Insurance" which is specifically designed to help with your exact situation. Perhaps instead of sitting back bitching about Obama you should invest that energy into actually using "google" and figuring out how to get insurance that can reduce your out of pocket expenses significantly. Basic medical plus major medical to create yourself a comprehensive policy, then add in a layer of supplemental on top of that and you can in many situations reduce your out of pocket to very low amounts to even profiting in some cases.
 
That's a bad idea. Drug research is very expensive and risky (i.e. they frequently fail to work).
However, it's ridiculous that the feds can't negotiate prices (or reimport drugs, for that matter).

The other alternative is that all drug research is funded by the government, but then you'll quickly find that some countries (perhaps ours) are footing the bill for the rest of the world.

IMO, we can quit being stupid and still allow patents.

This, to a large degree.

And the guy that listed which country each of the top-ten pharma's has its headquarters should acknowledge that they're all massively multinational companies, which makes his point a bit more complicated than USA, France, Switzerland, Japan, England, etc.

Lastly, anyone who brings up one point as a massive crux to why US healthcare is more expensive than most all the world should remember that this stuff is incredibly complex and there's probably no good solution. Not that the suggestions themselves are bad.
 
Hate to say it because people don't want to hear it but Healthcare is not a fundamental human right.it is a privilege for people who can afford it.

Healthcare is essential for survival. Without healthcare, it directly infringes on your right to live and survive. Of course, not everyone has illnesses that could potentially threaten their lives like congestive heart failure, blood pressure issues, or diabetes, but the ones that do (perhaps HUNDRED MILLION Americans) have a right to survive, to live. That makes healthcare essential to survival. Period.

What if you got some illness that required expensive medication costing $10,000/month, which your insurance won't cover it because they say "Your healthcare is not a human right - only a privilege so pay out of pocket"? What would you do then? Would you just say "Yes, you're right! I will get rid of my house, declare bankruptcy, and I will pay you whatever you want!"?? I guarantee you will take it to court & fight.

I agree that all healthcare companies/hospitals should be paid fairly for the R&D and costs for the medicines they research/make/sell. BUT they shouldn't be in it to pad up their pockets with BILLIONS in profit. Forget revenue but PROFITS AFTER all the costs are PAID. That's AFTER the R&D costs, manufacturing costs, workers are all paid off.
i.e. Lets say CEO salary is $20 million yearly. CEO gets bonus check of $25 million for the extra profit company made, which usually gets run through overseas banks to circumvent taxes through loopholes - first loophole by company and second by the CEO/administrator/whoever. I don't know all the primary loopholes they use (a financial attorney might know). Then at the end, the company's statements say they took a financial loss or they report less profits than they actually made (because they gave it away as bonus checks). Who wants to sacrifice their own health to let that happen? Even in a capitalistic system, that's outright immoral.
 
Everyone who blames Republicans on the most widely criticized provisions of the so-called Affordable Care Act fail to take into account just how little influence Republicans actually had in Congress when it was created and passed. Following the Democratic Party's regaining of the House of Representatives by a 35 member majority and of the Senate (a 49-49 tie, but Independents Bernie Sanders and Joseph Lieberman caucused with the Democrats) by a slim 2 member majority, the 2008 Presidential elections strengthened the Democrats' gains, landing them a 78 member majority in the House and an 18 member majority in the Senate, although for about 7 months the Democrats had a veritable supermajority in the Senate (60 members total, counting the two Independents, Lieberman and Sanders, who caucused with them) in between the concession on June 30, 2009, of Senator Norm Coleman to Al Franken, and the swearing-in of Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown on February 4, 2010. Obama essentially had control of Congress for his first two years, and not even the supposed blue dog Democrats elected in 2006 challenged him much on the issue of socialized health care.
 
It's fair and mainly because I'm not talking about ACA in it's initial incarnation. It had some problems at first, which is why even many Dems weren't on board. However most of those issues got worked out early and then it turned into a Reb stonewall mess. Now do bear in mind that I pretty much think both parties are full of pathetic scumbags, so I am in no way defending the dems here. However reality was when it came to ACA, it was a good plan and could of been amazing had both parties been more concerned with the American people and not "how much can we dick over the other party".

Some of the provisions in ACA even after all the mess are downright amazing and they constantly get glossed over because people still want to play the political bullshit game. Hell, some GOP candidates are STILL claiming they will repeal it if they get in office, Not work on improving it, but repeal it. That should be a giant red flag to anyhow who isn't a giant asshole. It isn't socialism to look out for the health of your nations citizens. There is a middle ground where insurance companies (I work for one), can profit and citizens can expect reasonable healthcare.So Since I am on the topic, let me point out a few highlights that people either don't know, or ignore.

First This idea that small employers are "Required" to pay for healthcare for their employees is utter bunk. They aren't. So we can just throw that out the window now. Small employers now simply have More options that allows them to offer insurance at prices they couldn't before if they so choose.

The big penalty that everyone is clamoring about isn't what everyone seems to think. That penalty is the exact same cost as the lowest priced coverage available as an individual. Additionally if your income falls below a certain threshold where you can't afford it, then there are provisions where the premiums will be subsidized or cover the cost entirely. This allows people who are working multiple part time jobs to actually afford insurance where they couldn't before. As a Very important note, this also put a stop to the past where if you had to have medicade, then you basically had to sell everything you owned. So basically the only way you get hit with any penalty is if you are pretty much a dumbass. There are of course exemptions for religion, Native americans etc. The short of it is, If you can't afford insurance you aren't going to be penalized, you are going to get what you need. On no planet is that ever a bad thing.

Other Provisions that the ACA brought in that were badly needed.
1) Ends Pre Existing Condition Exclusions for Children. This was HUGE and people just gloss over it. This put an absolute stop to insurance refusing to cover children because of pre existing conditions.

2) It added provisions for Young adults to be allowed to be covered on their parents plan up to age 26. Basically they can stay covered this way while in college instead of having to page huge rates for their own policy while not employed.

3) Guaranteed rights to appeal a denied payment.

4) A Near Complete Ban on lifetime benefit limits, meaning your insurance company can no longer say "Nope, we aren't covering your heart condition you developed after years of paying us because that is too expensive".

5)Insurance companies must now publicly justify rate hikes.

6) Stops certain insurance plans from denying emergency service claims. This was largely aimed at certain HMO's who were notorious for denying out of network emergency claims just because someone got into an accident while on vacation.

There are quite a bit more as well, especially in regards to preventative care and pregnancy. There is also quite a bit of stupid in it as well, it isn't perfect. The basic idea though is that Young people and Old people especially should be able to see reasonable healthcare without being bankrupted. Additionally Working adults should have a reasonable expectation of being able to afford basic healthcare and shouldn't fear an unknown health issue or an Accident ruining you financially forever. I think the short of it is this; Any person who votes for a candidate who supports repealing ACA instead of continuing to make it better, really is a giant prick. There is absolutely ZERO reason outside political BS to be against the ACA. It is a great system that absolutely improved health insurance in the US. It has some flaws and yes it needs more work. However it isn't socialist, it isn't communist and it is a damn shame that people are letting their idiotic political beliefs blind them to this fact.

Just remember this boys and girls..Before the ACA came along, if you wanted health insurance after losing a job your only choice was COBRA. For those that this doesn't ring a bell, just know that most normal people couldn't this if they wanted to. Cobra Premiums are absolutely INSANE. Now you actually have choices for individual insurance that aren't going to break you financially if you aren't rich.

Well written and thought out. Thanks for that.
 
Back
Top