There is nothing in the Affordable Care Act that actually controls costs except for those with subsidies which is actually cost shifting to taxpayers.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated in its revised 10-year budget forecast last month that ObamaCare subsidies would cost $1.3 trillion over the next decade. The law’s Medicaid expansion for healthy adults earning below 138% of the poverty line is projected to cost another $1.4 trillion.
And that’s assuming the ObamaCare subsidy sweeteners that Democrats enacted in their March 2021 Covid bill and extended in the Inflation Reduction Act expire as scheduled in 2025. These enabled many households to qualify for more than $10,000 in subsidies.
The ObamaCare subsidies are expected to cost $450 billion more from 2022 to 2031 than CBO’s July 2021 projection. One reason is the richer subsidies lured millions of more people to sign up than originally forecast. That’s especially true for those earning less than 150% of the poverty level, who can receive subsidies that fully offset premiums.
Opinion, The Wall Street Journal 7-11-24
Many people enrolled in Obamacare pay far less for health insurance than retirees at similar income levels enrolled in Medicare and supplemental coverage.
There is no denying Obamacare increased the number of Americans with health insurance, but at what cost?
Among Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Obamacare, employer coverage and private insurance, we are playing a ridicules game of unfair cost shifting while 26 million or about 8% of the U.S. population still does not have coverage.
The absurdity of this boggles the mind – or should.
Common sense says we should all be in one health insurance pool with the same coverage, funded by taxes, premiums and out-of-pocket costs based on the ability to pay. And yes, many people will pay more in taxes and premiums than they receive in benefits. That’s how insurance works. I would be happy never to have a health insurance claim.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
of course next we will hear that it will save us money–I like that the CBO mentioned in the WSJ editorial estimated one cost and now gives us a 2nd which is quite a bit higher–the reason of course are folks reacting to the subsidies, which is common sense, hold out the carrot and the obvious happens–the unexpected costs whicre always more.
I recently spoke with a high ranking administrator and doctor at Mass General-Brigham and asked what he thought of a single payer system–wasn’t quite sure he said as the devil is in the details but something needs doing.
Spoke of G7 countries like Germany and Sweden which do single payer but folks can purchase private health care so the initial layer everyone has and then spend $ for the additional insurance if you want. Asking about level of care he said, as an example, the hospitals doing private care are far less crowded and patients seemingly receive somewhat better care.
He was in Moldova (sp) and there if you have, as an example, a heart attack, the ambulance comes–the attendants give you medicine or a level of care–you are then responsible for getting to the hospital–can you catch a ride with the ambulance?? nope!! he laughed and said how strange it was.
With the British system, which is very popular, health care is rationed and at certain ages certain procedures, like dialysis, is not available.
Pretty complicated stuff this health care and of course the devil is in the details.
LikeLike