We are in the same position and are very grateful.
This issue with this "Act" is that it focuses on the insurance provider side and I don't think has any legislation to impact the actual cost of healthcare, which is the real root cause. Insurance companies have their ROI targets, just like any other company. If federal policies result in their costs going up in in one area, they will make it up in other areas to offset their loss.
We are both retired now and our policy premium just increased by another 25% with an equivalent increase in deductible for 2026. So that $5k-6k figure I provided above now looks more like $10k/yr vs pre ACA. That's just the cost of entry.
I don't know as there is any legislation that could meaningfully impact the "actual" cost of healthcare, at least not one that we as a country would have the appetite for (though it's growing). When you look at healthcare costs overtime, the US has been on a remarkably sharp rise since long before ACA:
Our per capita expenditures are ~$13,000 and are DOUBLE the next closest country (Germany as of 2023). Here's the average family costs per year (the commonly referenced "KFF Chart"):
It's not because we (U.S.) use more care, but because of how it is priced, administered, and in many case financed. Unlike nearly every other OECD country, the U.S. has no centralized price negotiation and the providers set chargemaster rates separately to different insurance providers. Couple that with the massive overhead related to multiple insurers with vastly different rules, prior authorization requirements, appeals, etc., as well as the fact that the U.S. health insurance is largely tied to employment, it's no wonder why we are double the nearest cost per capita. Then, throw in the fact that the U.S. system of "fee-for-service" rewards care volume rather than care outcomes, the fact that we have a broken payment system and that many people seek emergency care for simple treatment (b/c it's their only option in many instances) and it goes less and less in our favor.
It isn't all our (the U.S.) fault though. One of the issues with drug development is that the U.S. (and New Zealand) is the only place where you can advertise to customers. This means companies are more likely to invest in R&D knowing they can recoup that $$ from U.S. markets, all while other countries reap the benefit of that investment without the negative side of it. Essentially, the U.S. subsidizes global drug development.
There's a lot that needs to be done and although the ACA was and is not perfect, I do give it credit for protecting and providing healthcare for those who would have otherwise been forced to go without it (such as those with preexisting conditions). As much as there has been historical opposition to ACA, the right has yet to come up with an alternative. There's likely reason for this... agreeing on what replaced the ACA is A LOT harder than agreeing on what they dislike about it.
). It was at the same time that the GOP learned that heuristics had lots of psychological value.
