> Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the ACA brought down costs. How it possible to calculate this theory when you don't have a control group? Said differently, i

> Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the ACA brought down costs. How it possible to calculate this theory when you don't have a control group? Said differently, if everyone is subject to ACA you can't compare it to a group of people that aren't subject to ACA. Also, insurance premiums are a direct result of how many people are in the pool. If the control group was "just use the previous year before ACA" then there was absolutely scenarios where people got cheaper healthcare after ACA even without the subsidies. Like real estate markets, insurance markets aren't national, they're local. FWIW - I'm neither advocating nor opposing the implementation of ACA, just stating it's not easy to conclude "healthcare costs more/less now".