even for all its flaws, can be seen in the difference between having insurance and not having insurance.
I have never added up all the bills this year for my wife's cancer treatment.
There are many.
X-rays and lab tests
hospitalization - both for her original emergency admission in January and for her autologous stem cell transplant in October
hospital bed (which she still uses) rental
additional over the counter treatments necessary as a part of her therapy but not covered by insurance
Without including what it cost for her care-giver after her stem cell transplant, which is not covered by insurance.
Thing three columns:
nominal costs what the insurance company pays what we pay.
Absent a GOOD insurance plan, the figures from the first column would mean a much larger final column.
I got the big bill for her stem cell transplant yesterday. She has asked that I not say what it is,but it is HUGE.
As a result, the nominal costs so far this year now are well over 100,000. In fact, they are now over 120,000.
Her government health insurance knocks those down significantly.
And what we pay? Our out of pocket costs, not including her caregiver, are less than 10,000.
Absent insurance she certainly could not have undergone the stem cell transplant, which while it temporarily cost her her hair, will extend her remission by several years.
Even without the transplant, the out of pocket costs would have wiped out all savings and most of our retirement account.
Absent any insurance, we would be bankrupt.
ACA has its problems. But it will move more people towards the kind of quality coverage that we have from her government employment.
All Americans should be able to afford access to appropriate medical care, without facing bankrupcty.
We should not be rationing health.
ACA can help to move us in the right direction.
We are lucky to have such good insurance.
All Americans should have such good insurance. Lives are at stake. People should not have to choose between health and financial security.