Does anybody on the right rely on the ACA for their insurance?

Try again. Death panels have nothing to do with it.

The billionaires are only a very small voting block.

 

If you pay $6 thousand a year, that means you make a very good income.

The ACA increases the cost of people making over about $100 K in taxable income. Net! After deductions. This is the part that needs to be fixed. Children under 18 reduces your cost.

 

We have a UHC too. It is cheaper than the mess in the USA

 

Yeah but disproportionately powerful

They OWN mitchies butt

 

That's because Americans subsidize all of the foreign healthcare systems.

That's why medicine is so expensive here, and so cheap there.

 

Then why hasn’t you boy Donnie fixed it like he promised?

 

Democrats.

 

But not my vote.

 

Bulldust!

Who invented the bionic ear? The cardiac Pacemaker? The Ultasound? Spray on skin for burns victims? HPV vaccine? Cure for stomach ulcers?

and the big one - William Florey and Penicillin

And we are still at it, UQ is working on a covid vaccine but it is using revolutionary technology - a molecular clamp

 

Who care when they can buy millions of votes?

 

-The Kaiser Foundation is a frequent and outspoken proponent of single payer healthcare. There is no denying that reality, and you will never see anything that comes from them that does not support policies in that direction, of which ACA is undeniably intended to be a step in that direction. If you want to take the 18% of the population that is on Medicare out of my numbers that is fine, it does not change the gist of my point. It is nowhere near 52 million with or without taking out the 18% that are on Medicare.

-Having worked in the sales end of pharma, that most certainly does not make me an expert on how drug prices are determined. With that being said I do know the basics of how that process is begun and I do have a fairly wide ranging business background. I left pharma back in 2007 or so, and at that time, it took on average about $1 billion to bring one drug to market. With that $1 Billion investment, they have about 12 years of patent protection to recoup that investment and to make an acceptable Return on Investment. Since anyone can make a 7% return on the market as a whole, corporate investors expect a higher return on their investment because it carries a great deal more risk than does investing in the S&P. Pharma I believe targets around a 12-20% return on capital employed, which seems reasonable when you consider the risk associated with that endeavor. In order to make that 12-20% return in a 12 year period, they look at the size of the market meaning how many scripts they expect/hope to be written, and they price it with that 12-20% return in mind.

On one end of the market spectrum, if you are looking at something like a cholesterol lowering statin that is used by a huge number of people and they will use it everyday for the rest of their lives, they can price that reasonably low and still make their desired returns. On the other end of the spectrum, if you look at that drug that cures Hepatitis C, there are comparatively very few people with that condition, and they will only take that drug once in their life for a very short period of time. In that instance, they have to price that drug at an astronomical price in order to recoup their investment. Without looking it up, I think that particular drug is something like $25k for a one month supply. Some people look at how much it costs to make a one month supply of that drug, and then mistakenly believe that such a price represents outrageous profiteering, but it is actually an economic necessity.

-Medicare is still the target of massive fraud. The reality is that its largesse makes it nearly impossible to police, plus the government never shepards its money nearly as tightly as the private sector because unlike the private sector the government is never worried about running out of money.

-If your definition of going forward is government run healthcare, I disagree with that assessment.

 

Sure.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/do-other-countries-piggyback-o

https://fortune.com/2015/11/03/us-europe-healthcare-gdp/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterubel/2014/04/18/the-real-health-care-subsidy-problem/#217a6d6c2881

http://www.darwinsmoney.com/americans-subsidize-medical-costs/

 

Yes they are

and that is less a reflection of a political stance than a conclusion from looking at the evidence. There is no doubt in the minds of anyone living in a country with a UHC that we are better off. Not even the beginnings of a doubt in my mind.

 

Those are only a minor part of prescription costs.

We pay for development. The drug companies sell to other countries on the margin. Meaning they can still make a bigger profit if they sell the drugs to foreign countries that only pay for the manufacture of the drug plus a small profit. They pay little or none of the development cost. That is why US citizens can go across the border into Canada and buy US manufactured cheaper than they can buy them in the US.

 

How do they buy millions of votes?

 

I have no desire to go off on the tangent of pro and con universal healthcare.

With that being said, the masses are absolutely and positively ignorant in general. Because the masses in your country are convinced they have it so good, proves absolutely nothing. Because they are ignorant does not automatically mean that they are wrong, nor does it mean that they are right. It simply means (assuming everyone there agrees as you assert) that in their ignorance they THINK they have it good. Their belief is not a very compelling argument.

 

It happened very infrequently to each person. But it happened to many people at one point or another. And it only needs to happen ONCE to be devastating. And it became unsustainable in the few years previous to the ACA. It was probably not as bad in the 1990s and before But I don't know because I had group insurance most of that time. Most cases I know people have had to go without insurance for years. I know three cases of people who lost everything: all their savings, house, ... Two of them to cancer, the other in a car accident. One of the cases of cancer died and the family managed to recover with an immensely reduced life style. I lost contact with the other one. The people in the traffic accident moved to Costa Rica (his wife is from there), where they have universal healthcare and he recovered there. But I did know several people that were one medical diagnostic, or one accident from losing everything, because they had NO insurance. My wife was in that situation for a while because of a bogus pre-existing condition (she had high blood pressure a week before giving birth to my youngest, and that excluded her from my coverage and had to get a much more expensive policy).

Now.. this is not the topic of this thread. The question is if there is any Republican here who relies on the ACA for health insurance, and would not be able to have insurance (be it due to costs, or due to pre-existing conditions) if the ACA is repealed.

 

Trump "saying" things does not create reality. You seem to think that he can turn water into wine by just "saying" it. Covering pre-existing conditions requires a healthcare plan. And Trump has none. As a matter of fact, this is the very reason why they are overturning obamacare.

No obamacare, thousands lose coverage due to pre-existing conditions. The question is if there are any of them here.

 

-It was worse in the 90's until they Passed HIPAA in 1997.
-The notion of people going bankrupt due to medical bills is over exxagerated nonsense. Most of those people are choosing bankruptcy protection because they are unable to work due to their illness. Their bills mount very quickly in that situation. Of all bills, healthcare has the least power in regards to compelling people to pay or to even impact credit rating. They file bankruptcy so that they can save their house and begin to move forward from the mountain of debt that has accumulated from going a long or indefinite period of time without income. Medical is one of many bills that put them under financially, but it is the only one that the left discusses.

Bankruptcy is not a punishment. It is a chance to start anew.

-So your wife was denied coverage because of temporary high blood pressure? That sounds incomplete. There is more to that story.

 

Little or many is irrelevant. I knew people who could have moved to a better position in another company and wouldn't take it because they feared the exclusion period in the new insurance policy. As I already said, if you work for the same company all your life as an employee, you're good. Otherwise, at one point or another in your life you will have to consider pre-existing conditions.

And that's the question on this thread. Who relies on ACA for their insurance?

As you can see by the responses, many here do, and they didn't even know what they are about to lose.

 

Repealing the ACA will also affect group plans. But that's material for a different thread. Not the topic of this one.

 

Not mine!

 

Opinion piece relying on the argument that since the US pays more for drugs somehow that means it is “subsidising” other countries - if that WERE true I would bet it is not out of the goodness of your hearts but rather because successive governments have failed to reign in price gouging

The final two are along the same lines and it is a simple blame game. Instead of owning up that the root cause of YOUR problem is that the Senate and in particular the GOP senators are sucking on the teat of Big Pharma and therefore will not put price controls in place they are shifting blame to anyone and everyone else

This is America’s problem - up to you to fix it mate

 

He had control of both houses for two years

 

Trump isn't going to be reelected. I think he knows that and that is why he's pushing Barrett so hard. I fully expect the Democrats to be in full control come January. If the SCOTUS would rule the ACA unconstitutional, that gives the Democratic controlled government an opportunity to come up with something better.