3 ms·
Again, consumers have absolutely been harmed by the skyrocketing cost of health care. But every bit of evidence shows that the ACA slowed that growth. The only
by irq11 7y ago
Again, consumers have absolutely been harmed by the skyrocketing cost of health care. But every bit of evidence shows that the ACA slowed that growth.
The only connection you’re making here is that your own costs went up after the ACA. It’s a post hoc fallacy.
- mieseratte 7y ago> The only connection you’re making here is that your own costs went up after the ACA. The connection is that the ACA rates, and rate-increases are out-of-touch with the employer-offered system, even when those firms are tiny and not nearing some kind of "scale" cost-savings. I have been hollering about this issue for years, and I've yet to have someone say "Ya know, I actually experienced something radically different." So where is all this evidence you claim but can't be bothered to provide?
- tptacek 7y agoI'm having trouble parsing what your argument here is. Are you saying that rates on the individual market are more expensive than the large group market is? Yes, that's true, and always has been (the small group market is effectively a facsimile of the individual market, for the obvious reason that there's not much actuarial benefit to pooling 10-20 random people). There also isn't one "employer offered" system. In addition to the aformentioned small-group marketplace, there are also large group plans that cover big companies, and very big companies often self-insure, using health insurance companies solely to administer benefits but financing the care themselves. Can you be specific about which of these kinds of health care financing have been impacted by the ACA, and how?
- magashna 7y agoThe ACA is a bandaid on a wart