> There was nothing in the ACA that tackled healthcare costs This isn't true. It's reasonable to argue that there are potential cost control efforts that wer

> There was nothing in the ACA that tackled healthcare costs This isn't true. It's reasonable to argue that there are potential cost control efforts that weren't included or implemented correctly or that what was included/implemented wasn't effective enough. But it is false to state that there was nothing in the ACA that was meant to address healthcare costs. There's a lot you can read about this. Here's two examples: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/09/controlling-health-care-costs https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/09/controlling-he... https://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/issue_briefs/2011/rwjf71451 https://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/issue_briefs/2... (RWJF has a ton of stuff worth reading, btw.) That first one is particularly important to digest for anyone who thinks price transparency should be among the primary solutions to health care costs issues. If you think incentives matter -- and I'd assume anyone who's hoping price transparency is a solution does -- then it's worth considering the fact that fee-for-service itself has an incentive built in that's inimical to cost control, and transparency and competition may not be enough to solve it. I'd also say that even if there were no other consideration than expanding access, you could credibly argue that is itself a cost control, at least if the HotSpot theory of expenses is correct: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/01/24/the-hot-spotters https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/01/24/the-hot-spotte... People have been talking about this for a long time: emergency interventions are expensive. Preventative care might control costs. Expanding access to services and making preventative care affordable removes incentives against seeking it. There's a tension here between that, of course, and letting consumers bear some first-dollar costs to give them incentives to do some rationing. It's almost like there's no easy answers. And if you're really concerned about health care generally or the ACA specifically, make sure you actually read the bill: https://www.healthcare.gov/where-can-i-read-the-affordable-care-act/ https://www.healthcare.gov/where-can-i-read-the-affordable-c... You might even find out that some of the people who worked on the bill included provisions to have US hospitals "establish and make public a list of its standard charges for items and services." Or you might find that there's an entire section called Title III that's about "Improving the Quality and Efficiency of Health Care." Almost like the people who worked on this really had thought about the relevant issues as much as a reasonably intelligent random citizen working in the tech industry has. :) Doesn't mean there aren't problems with it or we couldn't do better. But we can't do better as long as people who care to talk about it don't have a clear and accurate idea of what has actually been done.