Originally posted by Sparko
View Post
Well, I'd say this is that fallacy of distribution problem. You might not save in yearly health care costs, other people will. One can't extrapolate to generalities based on small sample sizes. We know that the premiums in the exchanges were ~16% lower than what the CBO estimated they'd be in 2010. That's partially because health care costs have risen at a slower rate since the ACA's passage than expected and that's at least partially attributable to the law. So it's not just the people on Medicaid who are winning; the bulk of people earning below, say, $40,000/year will have the option to pay significantly less in premiums than they would pre-ACA, with the safety of essential benefits that prevent "junk" insurance, or pay relatively the same as they were paying before for less comprehensive coverage. And, of course, the ACA continues to be outperforming the CBO's initial cost expectations, meaning we're saving more money than we expected.
Individual results will vary but, in aggregate, the law is fulfilling its essential purpose of expanding coverage and reducing costs.
—Sam
Comment