From this side of the Atlantic, or really probably from any country that has some form of assured health care, the notion that you could have to go without insulin in the states is... baffling. Utterly baffling.
Best of luck with it!
The trouble is not paying for it, there is help, the trouble is they make it a huge pain, with annoying paperwork.
Trying not to mention how things are funded is a bit like Basil Fawlty trying not to mention the war.
(To all the Obama naysayers--he tried. By the time Republicans got through scaring people, he needed to include private insurance companies, just to get something passed. And something is still better than what we had before--Nothing!
No insurance--own house--get sick--go to hospital--get jacked up bill--can't afford to pay--hospital lawyers eventually receive judgement on lawsuit--eventually attach home--quietly evict you! This scenario is still possible.
I hear about these earnest individuals(without assets) and refusing to declare bankruptcy still struggling to pay off their medical bills. Go ahead, but just know the rates they charge you were padded, and you are paying the highest rates they can charge you? Even if you pay cash, and they half the bill(antidotal stories I have heard on the fact machine) you are still paying way more than anyone with collective bargaining agreements(Insurance companies). Don't be a hero? It's a rigged system.
Yes--I have a bit of anger towards the medical system.
That's an...interesting...spin.
The Democrats had the votes to pass any bill they wanted.
They passed that one.
Sorry, you don't get to blame it on "Republicans".
Do you honestly believe Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh (among many others) would vote for any bill Obama wanted? That's not factually true, so I'm wondering why you believe it.
They had a majority in both Houses and could thus have passed any bill they, collectively, wanted (in fact they did it without a single Republican vote, and without allowing any amendments or even very much debate).
They passed that bill. Obama then signed that bill. That, my friend, is factually correct.
Why this desperate attempt to make it somehow the fault of "Republicans"? How about taking some responsibility?
They're the ones trying to make something created by the Heritage Foundation seem "Socialist".
Why won't the GOP take responsibility for what its behaviors are doing?
I'm really curious.
The Republican party is a bit more fractured, which is how all political parties should be. People should be scared of a political party where dissent is heavily punished and nearly absent. The reason is because it expressly puts the party before the people.
Fortunately the voters have three times shown the error of that thinking and the resulting control of Congress is the result. As for the office of the Presidency, politics of identity (race/sex/etc) has become the norm and unless the Republicans participate in that type electioneering they won't get into the White House.
I think you are very mistaken. The ACA added additional regulations that limit insurance company profitability (80% rule). The reason rates went up is because the legislation demands insurers provide more (coverage of children up to 26, caps on out of pocket, no pre-existing condition limitation). I'm not saying they were bad ideas, but anyone in their right mind knew that would increase costs not lower them.