Health Care Cost Control? Don't Count On It.


Remember all those cost controls that were supposed to be in the health care bill? The bill that just last month President Obama said was supposed to be about "bringing down the cost of health care for families and businesses and for the federal government?"

Yeah, well, not so much. A.P. reports:

Insurance premiums are likely to keep going up over the next few years. Experts predict that the law's early benefits—such as expanded coverage for children and young adults—could nudge rates a little higher than would otherwise have been the case. Also, insurers and medical providers could try to raise their prices ahead of big shifts set for 2014.

Under the 10-year, $1 trillion plan, 2014 is when competitive insurance markets for individuals and small businesses are expected to open, and tax credits start flowing to help millions of middle-class households now uninsured. Medicaid will expand and pick up millions of low-income people. Most Americans would be required to carry health insurance, except in cases of financial hardship. Insurers no longer could turn away those in poor health.

More than 30 million previously uninsured people would gain coverage quickly—and they'll start going to the doctor for care previously postponed. Increased demand will push up health care spending, putting more pressure on premiums.

The cost controls in the bill are unlikely to provide much of a counterweight. Democrats scrambling to line up votes for the final bill weakened a provision that would have enforced austerity through a hefty tax on high-cost employer coverage.

Other savings in the law—mainly Medicare cuts—may prove politically unsustainable, according to the government's own experts. 

You can't say this is suprising; all along, the strategy on health care reform was "buy now, pay later." Well, we went ahead and bought in. And pretty soon we're going to pay up.

NEXT: Joe Camel Eats a Happy Meal...in Jail!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Don’t you mean buy now, pay now and see the benefits in four years?

  2. Menawhile the President finds it “amusing” that the angry mob isn’t thanking him for what he claims are lower taxes this year.


    2. He should try bread and circuses instead.

  3. The only surprising thing about this is the source; every AP story I have seen recently may as well have been written by Valerie Jarret.

    1. The wire services’ standards of objectivity have really taken a nose-dive recently. It didn’t take long before I’d had my fill of opinion pieces masquerading as news reports.

  4. And pretty soon we’re going to pay up.

    Or they are going to inflate the currency to screw the creditors.

  5. Wasn’t BO supposed to be a friend of the middle class? How will they feel when they realize that the Medical Itemized deduction has been raised to 10% of Adjusted Gross Income (from 7.5%) and that medical flex benefit plans will be capped at $2500 and won’t reimburse for over the counter drugs?

  6. Well, we went ahead and bought in.

    What do you mean by “we”, Kemosabe

  7. I find it funny that none of you probably complained about the iraq war that costed us trillions upon trillions of dollars. But when a democrat tries to give us socialized healthcare, which will cost less than 3000 dollars a person, and will benefit our lower class, and people who are not insured, you all start to bitch

    1. First time?

      1. This guy needs remedial trolling lessons.

        1. It’s so sad that 85% of Americans are only trolling at a 5th-grade level.

          1. SAVE ARE TROLS!!!!!!!!!

    2. Read the archives and shut the fuck up.

    3. will benefit our lower class, and people who are not insured

      I’m not insured and I make $12 an hour–more like $9.50 after taxes–and I’m in the expensive state of California. I think that qualifies for lower class, but maybe you have different standards. It’s a rare day that I’ll average more than $0.70 for each meal I eat, so certainly I feel poor if nothing else.

      Either way, I see no benefits from this health care that I want. I’m young, so I don’t need anything major done. I telecommute, so it’s unlikely that I’ll get severely sick, break a bone, or wind up in a car accident. Even if I did, I have more than enough in the bank to cover virtually anything short of fatal disease out of pocket because I’ve scrimped and saved for a long while.

      The health care bill wants me to spend “less” money before I need to rather than spending more money exactly when I need to. I prefer the latter because 1) I don’t think “when I need to” will be any time soon for me, and 2) even if I had to choose between these two scenarios, I’d rather retire sooner–however little that “sooner” may be due to my savings–and die sooner courtesy of not having health insurance (not that I can be convinced lack of health insurance can kill me in the first place when I could pay out of pocket, but I’m running through a best-case scenario argument for the bill here) than live longer because I have health insurance and consequently retire later because I had to pay for it all the while.

      Forcing me onto one route is opposing freedom of choice.

      Finally, the Iraq war was and is garbage and is widely considered to be such around here, as the others have alluded to, but keep on assuming–that’s literal prejudice, or in other words pre-judgment.

    4. Seriously, where do these idiots keep coming from who think team red’s dumbass programs somehow excuse team blue’s dumbass programs?

    5. Can I send you the $9000.00 bill my family will be getting under your plan?

  8. But you know what? Those birds are still chirpin’, the sun is still shinin’, so everything is okay.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.