• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will ObamaCare reduce healthcare costs and insurance premiums?

Will ObamaCare reduce healthcare costs and insurance preminums?

  • Yes, ObamaCare will reduce healthcare costs and insurance premiums

    Votes: 14 25.5%
  • No, ObamaCare will increase healthcare costs and insurance premiums

    Votes: 33 60.0%
  • IDK/other

    Votes: 8 14.5%

  • Total voters
    55
From his speech on the last page - you stopped at page 1.

"Here’s what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I’m serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don’t materialize. Part of the reason I faced a trillion dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for – from the Iraq War to tax breaks for the wealthy. I will not make that same mistake with health care."

" The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of one percent each year, it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term."


S0... where is the first reduction in the deficit he promised?

Should I go to the part of promising everyone will have coverage and no pre-existing conditions would disqualify - and then link to how after 133,000 applications the Obama Administration shut all that down?

Was the topic and the question not healthcare costs and insurance premiums? Why, sure enough, it was. Moving the goalposts already.
 
President Obama and Democratic leadership promised ObamaCare/The Affordable Healthcare Act will reduce national healthcare costs and reduce insurance premiums.

Was that a truthful promise?

Reduce them for who? Your poll is way too general
 
Reduce them for who? Your poll is way too general

No it's not.

Health care has a price. Whoever pays what percentage of that price doesn't change the actual cost of that health care. Does PPACA lower the actual cost of health care services?

Health insurance also has a price for monthly premiums. Whether a person/family receives a federal subsidy to assist with the price of that premium does not change its actual price. Does PPACA lower the price of premiums?
 
Uh... Almost none of the ACA has actually started yet. Nothing about Obamacare would have affected your current copays or prescription coverage.

More to the point, insurance premiums have been rising steadily for years:

2insure12web.jpg


Plus, as of January 1st, you may qualify for better plans at a lower price, once the tax credits kick in. Not only that, but if your spouse has a condition that requires expensive medication all the time, he'd never get any coverage on the independent market. No insurer would have covered him with a pre-existing condition like that. ACA stops that kind of redlining.



Yeah, that does suck, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with Obamacare.
Yes healthcare costs have been rising for years because of the increase in cost of medical treatment. Let's start with the education of the doctor/surgeon. Upon graduation most are left with an exuberant amount in student loans to pay back. Once he joins a practice or opens his own, he pays a very high premium for malpractice insurance. Because of the complexity of handling government Medicare and Medicaid insurance, his office needs to be big enough to provide room for a group of office workers just to handle all the paperwork. The more complex the government makes something, it always results in a greater cost passed down to the consumer. In this case, office calls and in office treatments increase to help cover the overhead of a doctor's practice. And because of the nature of many to sue, often leaves a doctor ordering unnecessary tests to cover his ass. These are just a couple of examples why insurance premiums have been increasing.

Central to ObamaCare are requirements that health insurers (1) accept everyone who applies (guaranteed issue), (2) cannot charge more based on serious medical conditions (this is known as modified community rating), and (3) include numerous coverage mandates that force insurance to pay for many often uncovered medical conditions.

This feckless set of rules allows people to forgo buying a policy until they get sick and need coverage (and then drop the policy after they get well). While ObamaCare imposes a financial penalty to discourage people from gaming the system, it is too low to be considered a threat. The result will be insurance pools that are smaller and sicker, and therefore more expensive. Add things like keeping a kid on your insurance to the age of 26 and making birth control free of charge don't help one bit either.

ObamaCare won't take full effect until 2014, health-insurance premiums in the individual market are already rising, and not just because of routine increases in medical costs. Insurers are adjusting premiums now in anticipation of the guaranteed-issue and community-rating mandates starting next year. That is why we are seeing such huge hikes in our premiums.

The mindless Democrats who crafted this boondoggle legislation ignored virtually every principle governing rational insurance pricing. Premiums are already reflecting it.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if anyone considers that the plans are not the same anymore, so it is difficult to compare apples to oranges.

The funny thing is that Obama gets all the wrath.

Where was all the wrath when insurance companies would dump patients when they got sick or would find obscure health tidbits to say a condition was pre-existing.

Where was all the wrath when folks with long past histories of cancer (but now very healthy) were denied insurance?

You know what I was told, "of course they pay attention to their bottom line, they are a business".
 
Because it's insurance...the larger the pool the less the costs.
In theory. These are still for-profit insurance companies answerable to stockholders, too. That means they will try to wring every possible cent of profit they think they can get away with.
 
It's going to take several years to fully shake out.

There will be individual anecdotes of savings and increased costs and those anecdotes will be shared by those who want to prove their own point.

Keep in mind also, that there will be "tweaks" along the way. Government simply does not leave anything alone and allow it to work. No, there will be "adjustments", and adjusting down and/or simplifying is rarely how it happens.
 
I have been informed that my health insurance will go up about 3.7% next year. Not sure if the ACA is totally responsible, but I would bet it played a part. You cannot expect insurance companies to absorb new mandates like preexisting conditions, no lifetime expenditure limits, carrying your child till 26 on your plan, more preventive care without increased costs.

Inflation, and just increased costs in doing business in health care is probably part of the increase along with ACA.

my two cents worth.
 
Yes healthcare costs have been rising for years because of the increase in cost of medical treatment.
I guess your computer works now. ;)

The evidence is abundantly clear that premiums have been rising since the 90s. The ACA only passed in 2010, and few of its provisions have actually gone into effect. Thus, if your insurance and/or medical costs skyrocketed in 2013, it has nothing to do with the ACA. Let's get specific, shall we?


Let's start with the education of the doctor/surgeon. Upon graduation most are left with an exuberant amount in student loans to pay back.
That's been the case for years. ACA also makes no changes whatsoever to medical school costs or student loans.


Once he joins a practice or opens his own, he pays a very high premium for malpractice insurance.
That's been the case for years. ACA does not alter malpractice insurance or lawsuits. It's also not a major driver of costs.


Because of the complexity of handling government Medicare and Medicaid insurance, his office needs to be big enough to provide room for a group of office workers just to handle all the paperwork.
Guess what? Paperwork for insurers is actually worse, because the insurers have spent years trying not to reimburse patients for procedures. The insurers have entire staffs dedicated to finding reasons not to cover someone or to pay for a procedure.

The ACA does not increase paperwork for Medicare/Medicaid. What it does is give the states more funds for those programs. These changes have had absolutely no effect on any changes in your premiums or pharmaceuticals for the past 20 years.


The more complex the government makes something, it always results in a greater cost passed down to the consumer.
And yet, the ACA simplifies a lot of things. E.g. if I want to get insurance now, I may have to call a dozen insurers to get their rates, and I will have to hope that they do not regard my allergies as a "pre-existing condition" that prevents them from offering me insurance. If you've ever done it, you know it is a Byzantine process.

With ACA, I look on one website, I get the rates for the plans, and I'm done. If I want to figure out my tax break in advance, Kaiser's calculator gives me a good idea (Subsidy Calculator | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation). Once people are used to it, it'll be easy. And that, of course, is what terrifies Republicans -- despite the core of ACA being a conservative free-market solution.


In this case, office calls and in office treatments increase to help cover the overhead of a doctor's practice. And because of the nature of many to sue, often leaves a doctor ordering unnecessary tests to cover his ass. These are just a couple of examples why insurance premiums have been increasing.
All of this has been going on for years, and has absolutely nothing to do with any increased costs you've seen over the past few years.


Central to ObamaCare are requirements that health insurers (1) accept everyone who applies (guaranteed issue), (2) cannot charge more based on serious medical conditions (this is known as modified community rating), and (3) include numerous coverage mandates that force insurance to pay for many often uncovered medical conditions.
Sort of.

Insurers cannot redline applicants because of alleged pre-existing conditions (which are usually just a proxy for not wanting to take older applicants). This is a Good Thing, because a lot of people who actually need insurance are prevented from getting it, purely based on profit motives.

They also cannot refuse to pay for certain real medical conditions. Again, if you had one of these conditions and your insurer refused to cover it, you'd be spitting mad. That problem, again, was generated by the profit motive of insurers.

The "adjusted community rating" means that insurers have to use a very large pool as the basis for their assessments of risk. Since insurers basically have to cover these broad pools now, it makes sense.

None of these things have taken effect yet. So once again, increases in your medical costs over the past few years are not the result of the ACA.


This feckless set of rules allows people to forgo buying a policy until they get sick and need coverage (and then drop the policy after they get well).
This is incorrect. The mandate is what gets as many people as possible into the insurance pool, and is designed to discourage people from doing exactly that.

Or are you advocating for stiffer taxes for those who do not get health insurance? :D


Insurers are adjusting premiums now in anticipation of the guaranteed-issue and community-rating mandates starting next year. That is why we are seeing such huge hikes in our premiums.
Yeah, the problem with this claim is that they've been increasing premiums every year since at least 1999 anyway. If the ACA had not passed, your premiums would almost certainly be the same as they are now, if not higher.

And so far, the reality is that the new rates are coming in much lower than expected. It's going to take years to see the full effects of the ACA -- and if Massachusetts is any guide, it won't be anywhere near the disaster predicted by critics.

Plus, the ACA has in fact already required insurers to refund ratepayers when they spend too much on overhead.

So, it is inappropriate to blame a law that has not fully gone into effect, for cost increases that you were almost certainly going to see anyway.
 
If premiums increase for most people, it's virtually impossible to quantify that they would have increased even more without the ACA.

They like to do that around here. They add things like sales tax increases to the ballot with some of the revenue promised for "property tax relief". Then, our property taxes go up the next year anyway. When questioned, they say property taxes would have gone up even more had we not had the sales tax "relief".

Ummm... how do we know that? :shrug:
 
I guess your computer works now. ;)

The evidence is abundantly clear that premiums have been rising since the 90s. The ACA only passed in 2010, and few of its provisions have actually gone into effect. Thus, if your insurance and/or medical costs skyrocketed in 2013, it has nothing to do with the ACA. Let's get specific, shall we?



That's been the case for years. ACA also makes no changes whatsoever to medical school costs or student loans.



That's been the case for years. ACA does not alter malpractice insurance or lawsuits. It's also not a major driver of costs.



Guess what? Paperwork for insurers is actually worse, because the insurers have spent years trying not to reimburse patients for procedures. The insurers have entire staffs dedicated to finding reasons not to cover someone or to pay for a procedure.

The ACA does not increase paperwork for Medicare/Medicaid. What it does is give the states more funds for those programs. These changes have had absolutely no effect on any changes in your premiums or pharmaceuticals for the past 20 years.



And yet, the ACA simplifies a lot of things. E.g. if I want to get insurance now, I may have to call a dozen insurers to get their rates, and I will have to hope that they do not regard my allergies as a "pre-existing condition" that prevents them from offering me insurance. If you've ever done it, you know it is a Byzantine process.

With ACA, I look on one website, I get the rates for the plans, and I'm done. If I want to figure out my tax break in advance, Kaiser's calculator gives me a good idea (Subsidy Calculator | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation). Once people are used to it, it'll be easy. And that, of course, is what terrifies Republicans -- despite the core of ACA being a conservative free-market solution.



All of this has been going on for years, and has absolutely nothing to do with any increased costs you've seen over the past few years.



Sort of.

Insurers cannot redline applicants because of alleged pre-existing conditions (which are usually just a proxy for not wanting to take older applicants). This is a Good Thing, because a lot of people who actually need insurance are prevented from getting it, purely based on profit motives.

They also cannot refuse to pay for certain real medical conditions. Again, if you had one of these conditions and your insurer refused to cover it, you'd be spitting mad. That problem, again, was generated by the profit motive of insurers.

The "adjusted community rating" means that insurers have to use a very large pool as the basis for their assessments of risk. Since insurers basically have to cover these broad pools now, it makes sense.

None of these things have taken effect yet. So once again, increases in your medical costs over the past few years are not the result of the ACA.



This is incorrect. The mandate is what gets as many people as possible into the insurance pool, and is designed to discourage people from doing exactly that.

Or are you advocating for stiffer taxes for those who do not get health insurance? :D



Yeah, the problem with this claim is that they've been increasing premiums every year since at least 1999 anyway. If the ACA had not passed, your premiums would almost certainly be the same as they are now, if not higher.

And so far, the reality is that the new rates are coming in much lower than expected. It's going to take years to see the full effects of the ACA -- and if Massachusetts is any guide, it won't be anywhere near the disaster predicted by critics.

Plus, the ACA has in fact already required insurers to refund ratepayers when they spend too much on overhead.

So, it is inappropriate to blame a law that has not fully gone into effect, for cost increases that you were almost certainly going to see anyway.

Yep worked on my puter all morning. It's up and running ta dah!

To recognize why healthcare has become so expensive is the key to bringing down the cost.
Starting with education, ditch the policies of the left that actually make higher learning ridiculously expensive.

Tort reform would bring down the cost of malpractice insurance and also stop a lot of unnecessary medical tests.

Reforms to Medicare and Medicaid could lessen government’s control over the poor and seniors and give enrollees the same advantages as the rest of Americans at the same time cutting the cost to seniors and the taxpayers.

Remove barriers to interstate purchase of health insurance. Creating more competition has a way of driving down costs.

All these suggestions would drive down the cost of medical insurance and shrink big government control at the same time.

You are also completely ignoring or should I state "blowing off" the overwhelming cost to insurance companies coming in just a few short months through guaranteed-issue and community-rating mandates. They are no longer going to be allowed to charge higher rates for high risk coverage and by law will not be allowed to turn anyone away. The new law requires that all insurance providers provide free birth control to women. Where in sam hill is all this money going to come from except through higher premiums for all? It's insane.
 
Yes, it should. If everybody in America has health insurance and competition for customers increases, prices should drop. However, the initial adjustments especially if some people putt off getting insurance right away and hospitals not factoring in a decrease if not elimination of people showing up with no insurance and continuing to pass those costs onto the insured ultimately seen in the costs of premiums, might temporarily make premiums go up slightly.

I also expect the cost of treatment to drop as the insured will no longer be required to subsidize the healthcare of people who show up at the ER uninsured. This on top of people no longer putting off routine physicals that could easily catch problems in the early stages when they're less expensive to treat.

Reality proves otherwise.
 
To recognize why healthcare has become so expensive is the key to bringing down the cost.
Starting with education, ditch the policies of the left that actually make higher learning ridiculously expensive.
1) Not the fault of the ACA, not by a longshot.
2) No "policies of the left" specifically drove up the costs of medical school, or higher education in general -- if anything, cuts to state and federal funds for higher education drove those costs up.


Tort reform would bring down the cost of malpractice insurance and also stop a lot of unnecessary medical tests.
Malpractice is a very small part of health care costs -- it's around 0.11% of the total. In fact, the number of malpractice suits has been falling for years, as have the payouts. (Malpractice not cause of healthcare cost | Healthcare Finance News)


Reforms to Medicare and Medicaid could lessen government’s control over the poor and seniors and give enrollees the same advantages as the rest of Americans at the same time cutting the cost to seniors and the taxpayers.
1) I'd say that it's the seniors who have control over government, since they are well-organized and strongly defend Medicare.

2) What "advantages" are you talking about?!? Being refused coverage? Steadily increasing premiums? Coverage for boner pills?

3) Medicare and Medicaid successfully hold down costs, because they pool all the enrollees, and thus have a very strong negotiating position with hospitals and doctors. In fact, a big problem with Medicare Part D (the prescription drug benefit) was that it prevented the government from negotiating with pharmaceuticals on prices.


Remove barriers to interstate purchase of health insurance. Creating more competition has a way of driving down costs.
Good news! The new exchanges will make it easier for consumers to directly compare plans, offered by multiple companies, with an easy-to-understand format. It puts the health insurance companies into direct competition, in a transparent fashion.

Nothing about the ACA prevents interstate health insurance offerings being allowed in the future.


All these suggestions would drive down the cost of medical insurance and shrink big government control at the same time.
1) Nothing you propose changes any of the incentives that are causing problems. E.g. Insurers will still refuse to cover people with pre-existing conditions, and/or refuse to pay for various conditions.

2) A major driver of costs is, wait for it... the insurers. The hospitals set "chargemaster" rates, which serve both as a negotiating point with insurers, and are also what uninsured people pay. Nothing about what you're suggesting changes this system. ACA at least gets more people in the pool, which gives insurers more leverage to reduce costs. Plus, with less people uninsured, fewer individuals get socked with the full chargemaster rates. It's not ideal, but it is an improvement.


You are also completely ignoring or should I state "blowing off" the overwhelming cost to insurance companies coming in just a few short months through guaranteed-issue and community-rating mandates.
The insurers have had years to get ready. And it hasn't cost them much -- surely much less than if, for example, a single-payer system was offered.

I'm also explicitly, and now repeatedly, pointing out how insurance premiums have been rising steadily since at least 1999.

And as already noted, the additional costs from covering people with pre-existing conditions are offset by the mandate. That's the whole point of the mandate -- to push more people into the risk pools. It is way too early to categorically declare that it can't work. And if not enough people sign up, they can always increase the tax penalties if absolutely necessary.

In addition, insurers in Massachusetts have worked with this exact same system for years, and they're doing fine.

So, in summary:
• Your costs were going to go up anyway. Just like they've been going up for years.
• The factors you cited are not, by a long shot, responsible for any increases in your personal health care costs over the past few years.
• The insurers will do just fine. If anything, ACA is a huge boon to them, since they get more ratepayers and don't have to worry about being wiped out by a single-payer system.
• Covering more people is a Good Thing.
 
I wonder if anyone considers that the plans are not the same anymore, so it is difficult to compare apples to oranges.

Two points about that:

1) The promise was, "If you like your plan, you can keep it." A lot of plans that people liked just fine are not ACA-compliant.
2) Yes, the plans are different and cover more, but that's small comfort for the guy who now has to pay more because his policy covers maternity care.
 
Two points about that:

1) The promise was, "If you like your plan, you can keep it." A lot of plans that people liked just fine are not ACA-compliant.
2) Yes, the plans are different and cover more, but that's small comfort for the guy who now has to pay more because his policy covers maternity care.

My insurance company has remained the same for years. My coverage changes every open enrollment period.

I am helping my mom (84) with her open enrollment. She has had the same insurance for 10 years. Each year we look to see how they tweaked her policy to decide if she should change to another option. Yup, different again. Some things a lot better, some things a smidge worse. She is going to keep the same policy.

So yup, we keep our policies. But just different this year (like every other year)
 
It's not exactly the same thing. Insurance companies change their policies in their own interests, with an eye towards making them attractive for customers. The government is forcing insurance companies to cover various things for political reasons, and leaving consumers no choice to avoid coverage they don't want or need.
 
1) Not the fault of the ACA, not by a longshot.
2) No "policies of the left" specifically drove up the costs of medical school, or higher education in general -- if anything, cuts to state and federal funds for higher education drove those costs up.
BS
College tuition costs have gone up 945 percent since 1980. The increase in tuition places a heavy burden on young people and their families. What has made college tuition so expensive? Tuition prices are rising so quickly because of supply and demand. As demand for college increases, universities can respond by increasing either enrollment or tuition costs. Since most universities are limited in the number of students they can enroll, they have largely responded to higher demand by increasing tuition.

Demand for a college education has increased partly because graduating college dramatically increases job prospects and partly because of government subsidies. Although many believe subsidies will make college more affordable, government subsidies actually contribute to rising costs. When you subsidize something, it's cheaper for people to consume. So people consume more of it and demand rises. A rise in demand will mean a rise in costs.

Colleges have no trouble filling seats, even with rising costs, so they keep spending and increasing tuition. Improvements to campus facilities and the addition of more administrative staff make college tuition even more expensive without necessarily improving the quality of education students receive. We now know the root causes of rising tuition—promises of higher wages and increased subsidies. Cut the friggin subsidies and watch the tuition rates decrease!!!!!:mrgreen:


Malpractice is a very small part of health care costs -- it's around 0.11% of the total. In fact, the number of malpractice suits has been falling for years, as have the payouts. (Malpractice not cause of healthcare cost | Healthcare Finance News)\

It isn't just the cost of malpractice insurance but the practice of defensive medicine being practiced to keep from being sued that has raised the cost of healthcare. Most studies on malpractice insurance I have read raises the cost of health coverage by 3% but it is this defensive medicine that covers the doctors' arses by ordering a bunch of very expensive un-founded tests that IS greatly increasing the cost of healthcare. When you have the threat of being sued hanging over your head with every diagnosis, the doctor tends to order the tests that were not really necessary in the first place to cover their arses.


1) I'd say that it's the seniors who have control over government, since they are well-organized and strongly defend Medicare.

2) What "advantages" are you talking about?!? Being refused coverage? Steadily increasing premiums? Coverage for boner pills?

3) Medicare and Medicaid successfully hold down costs, because they pool all the enrollees, and thus have a very strong negotiating position with hospitals and doctors. In fact, a big problem with Medicare Part D (the prescription drug benefit) was that it prevented the government from negotiating with pharmaceuticals on prices.
That is so much crap I don't know where to begin and needs a new thread for discussion!


Good news! The new exchanges will make it easier for consumers to directly compare plans, offered by multiple companies, with an easy-to-understand format. It puts the health insurance companies into direct competition, in a transparent fashion.

I don't know where you get your information but from what I have read, major insurance providers are bowing out of state exchanges such as Aetna, Blue Cross and others. There are a very limited number of insurance companies which makes it a joke to call it direct competition.
Nothing about the ACA prevents interstate health insurance offerings being allowed in the future.
If the government Democrats wanted to strengthen the insurance sector by allowing interstate health insurance to allow a free market to provide the needed competition that would naturally lower healthcare premiums, they never would have come up with this boondoggle called Obamacare that stifles it.


1) Nothing you propose changes any of the incentives that are causing problems. E.g. Insurers will still refuse to cover people with pre-existing conditions, and/or refuse to pay for various conditions.

2) A major driver of costs is, wait for it... the insurers. The hospitals set "chargemaster" rates, which serve both as a negotiating point with insurers, and are also what uninsured people pay. Nothing about what you're suggesting changes this system. ACA at least gets more people in the pool, which gives insurers more leverage to reduce costs. Plus, with less people uninsured, fewer individuals get socked with the full chargemaster rates. It's not ideal, but it is an improvement.



The insurers have had years to get ready. And it hasn't cost them much -- surely much less than if, for example, a single-payer system was offered.

I'm also explicitly, and now repeatedly, pointing out how insurance premiums have been rising steadily since at least 1999.

And as already noted, the additional costs from covering people with pre-existing conditions are offset by the mandate. That's the whole point of the mandate -- to push more people into the risk pools. It is way too early to categorically declare that it can't work. And if not enough people sign up, they can always increase the tax penalties if absolutely necessary.

In addition, insurers in Massachusetts have worked with this exact same system for years, and they're doing fine.

So, in summary:
• Your costs were going to go up anyway. Just like they've been going up for years.
• The factors you cited are not, by a long shot, responsible for any increases in your personal health care costs over the past few years.
• The insurers will do just fine. If anything, ACA is a huge boon to them, since they get more ratepayers and don't have to worry about being wiped out by a single-payer system.
• Covering more people is a Good Thing.
You may be a really nice guy but you are looking through this boondoggle with rose colored glasses.
You really don't have a grasp on how big government is going to destroy another private sector in the economy. You a big government lover are obviously blind to the realities. The IRS for cripe sake is going to play a major role in implementing Obamacare. Jeeeeesus before it is fully implemented the IRS has already lost track of 67 million in spending on Obamacare.

IRS loses track of $67 million in Obamacare spending, audit finds | Hawaii Reporter

But hell what's 67 million when it's somebody else's money!

Nothing personal but only a moron would want the IRS involved in something as personal as healthcare.
 
Last edited:
It will raise premiums, probably. But premiums are not the end of the story.

Health care costs overall for the insured will be lower as a result of better coverage and more preventative care.
 
College tuition costs have gone up 945 percent since 1980. The increase in tuition places a heavy burden on young people and their families. What has made college tuition so expensive? Tuition prices are rising so quickly because of supply and demand.
That's one reason, yes.

However, the idea that higher education is a commodity whose price drops because of increased supply is deeply flawed. Students are not like onions or computer chips, and most schools are not for-profit ventures. A school will ideally want to maintain the same teacher-student ratio; many schools are limited in their capacity. "More students" means you need to build more facilities, hire more professors/instructors, and increase administrative staff. There are few (if any) economies of scale in education.

Nor are "liberal policies" what drive some universities to spend on non-core facilities. Many schools are throwing immense sums at their football programs; that is rarely a liberal priority, nor do governments encourage schools to pay enormous salaries to their coaches.

In addition, government funding like Pell Grants undoubtedly reduces the burden of tuition. Slashing those grants is not a liberal policy.

Your analysis is completely backwards.


It isn't just the cost of malpractice insurance but the practice of defensive medicine....
That cost is likely overstated. Costs Of Defensive Medicine May Be Overstated : Shots - Health News : NPR

Next....


major insurance providers are bowing out of state exchanges such as Aetna, Blue Cross and others.
Aetna, Cigna and United Healthcare have pulled out of some states; they're waiting to see how things will work out. Wellpoint / Blue Cross are in. The exchanges also now put smaller players on an even playing field with the Big Guys -- in fact, it may work out better for them, as there is now one central spot to get insurance.


You really don't have a grasp on how big government is going to destroy another private sector in the economy.
Sorry, but I've got a pretty good grasp and perspective on the issues. E.g. pretty much everything that you claim caused an increase in your own bills this year hasn't even started yet and/or won't affect your bills.

In addition, "Romneycare" is nearly identical to ACA, and Massachusetts has done just fine. In fact, MA residents are fairly happy with the results. The program is, ultimately, a free-market process of conservative origins. It keeps the insurers in business, instead of wiping them out with a single-payer option.

The health insurers have been well on their way to destroying themselves anyway. For years -- as in, long before ACA was even drafted -- they've been increasing their premiums, reducing coverage, and freezing more and more people out of their services. Employers have to pass more and more of the costs onto employees, and independents (freelancers, sole proprietors, small business owners) won't be able to get coverage at all. If that keeps up, the insurers will price themselves out of the market.

And no, I'm not terrified of the Big Bad Government.
 
It will raise premiums, probably. But premiums are not the end of the story.

Health care costs overall for the insured will be lower as a result of better coverage and more preventative care.



That's possible, but the evidence is spotty. Is it more expensive to treat 10 people with late stage breast cancer or to give 1000 people annual mammograms?

Also, systems like Canada's seem to feel that triage care provides better value than preventive care. If you have an emergency, you get seen right away. If you want preventive care, you wait. That implies strongly that Canada doesn't see preventive care as cheaper than just treating emergencies as they come up.
 
That's the contradiction within the law though. Only a few people will be paying in who were able to but didn't before. Not nearly enough to cover the millions of new free-riders created by the subsidies and Medicaid expansion.

For insurance companies they are now getting 40 million additional policy holders and a large portion of them are younger/healthier individuals. Keep in mind...it's the government that is subsidizing the cost. The providers get the benefit of new policy holders.

Now granted not my ideal situation. If the government is going to ensure everyone is covered I'd prefer them to just play the role of insurer but hey....that's socialism.
 
In theory. These are still for-profit insurance companies answerable to stockholders, too. That means they will try to wring every possible cent of profit they think they can get away with.

I agree...the only reason I support Obamacare is because the alternative is not realistically universal healthcare. If it's repealed there's no way a more liberal bill passes...even if "Medicare for all" is insanely popular. It will be some minor reforms and back to the old way of doing business. Heck I could see deregulation efforts being pushed by the House. One of their main "reforms" for lowering prices is to allow across state lines competition...a race to the bottom as deregulated states offer cut rate prices by fly by the night insurance firms.
 
I agree...the only reason I support Obamacare is because the alternative is not realistically universal healthcare. If it's repealed there's no way a more liberal bill passes...even if "Medicare for all" is insanely popular. It will be some minor reforms and back to the old way of doing business. Heck I could see deregulation efforts being pushed by the House. One of their main "reforms" for lowering prices is to allow across state lines competition...a race to the bottom as deregulated states offer cut rate prices by fly by the night insurance firms.
As much as it goes against my normal line of thinking, I support universal healthcare. I also think that Obamacare is just a step in that direction, though I agree with your point that it would be a mighty hurdle to overcome.

Is it ideal? No. I just think it's the best possible option out of a lot of crappy options. My biggest consternation about Obamacare is that I feel it delays the inevitable. I'd rather we just suck it up now and get it done.
 
For insurance companies they are now getting 40 million additional policy holders and a large portion of them are younger/healthier individuals. Keep in mind...it's the government that is subsidizing the cost. The providers get the benefit of new policy holders.

Now granted not my ideal situation. If the government is going to ensure everyone is covered I'd prefer them to just play the role of insurer but hey....that's socialism.

But the previous complaint was that we needed this in part to reduce the burden on taxpayers of uncompensated emergency room care. Now we're giving the same people full insurance.
 
Back
Top Bottom