Why King V Burwell matters for people with Hep C.
First some context,
The ACA has done many things, from preexisting conditions, extension of benefits for young people (under 26), required labeling at restaurants of a certain size, a healthcare marketplace with an exchange that's consistent, and properly taxing what was before sheltered income for those making over 200,000 per year/have Cadillac plans.
There is one more, and this was the lynch-pin in the court case. it was whether or not the subsidies would be issued to states who did not create their own exchanges.
An interesting problem is that the many of the largest groups of subsidy recipients happen to be in states without exchanges. A problem if King V Burwell went the other way.
with King v Burwell a 6-3 it means that more cases which bare similarity will be less likely come up to the supreme court.
The Majority Opinion of the court helps millions maintain health insurance. Every year thousands more Americans find out they have Hep C, a disease which needs medical attention, care and insurance.
The other day I wrote about barriers. one of the big barriers when a person knows they have it, is paying for the care/treatment.
Insurance helps reduce the cost dramatically, and those with insurance are more likely not only to get treated, but to better manage their health than someone without insurance.
My testing and treatment, using Covered California cost to date around ten thousand dollars.
That is because it hot max out of pocket of $ 4,000 last year, and I'm on track to do it again.
If I did not have Covered California I would likely be on Medicare due to my meager income, and without the ACA's expansion, I'd still be waiting another 20 months, because I'm disabled it takes 24 months of being permanently disabled to receive Medicare. wait...WHAT? 24 MONTHS?
So..because they're permanently disabled, and more than likely require health services, the government has to wait two years, to give them healthcare.
The exchanges prevent issues like this by reducing the cost of insurance, and subsidizing those who are having trouble paying for insurance.
For those of you Nay sayers against the ACA: the ACA will reduce medical costs overall by increasing buying competition through insurers. Since you don't directly pay (only co-pay) most hospitals, you're not he consumer of healthcare, you are the end-user.
This means that more money is spent in other sectors, money that would have mostly gone into overhead and left circulation.
It will reduce the number of bankruptcies as I talked about last blog. medical bills are getting paid, preventative care is more common, both of which reduce the overall medical debt which leads to medical bankruptcies.
Over one million Americans filed for medical-bill related personal bankruptcy in 2013.While bankruptcy numbers won't be in for three or four years which show the early effects of the ACA/Obamacare, bills are down and cost reduction is improving.
Bankruptcy costs society millions of dollars every year, sick workers are less productive, and more money is removed from circulation. For the Nay sayers, here's the financial cents.
The ACA has room for improvement but as it stands it expands healthcare to those who need it. It helps protect individuals and society by lowering costs. and it keeps more people productive, happy, and healthier.