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?
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.