How Health Care Reform Affects the Health Insurance Market


Here's how Medicare's actuaries project ObamaCare will affect health insurance premiums, via Avik Roy at Forbes:

In 2014, the actuaries find that growth in the net cost of health insurance will increase by nearly 14 percent, compared to 3.5% if PPACA had never passed. The growth rate of private insurance costs will rise to 9.4 percent, from 5.0 percent under prior law: an 88% increase.

So what about all the supposed health insurance "savings" that the Obama administration has said we'll see as a result of ObamaCare? That's true—at least if you count the law's new insurance subsidies as a form of savings; when taxpayers pick up part of the tab, the price paid by an individual ends up being less, even if the total price is expected to rise. 

NEXT: David Boaz Schools Former Bushie on Drug Law Reform

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. But it was going to “bend the cost curve”. You mean all those people who claimed that were either stupid or lying?

    1. Useful. Idiots.

    2. No, no. It’s just the New Math, silly. When subtracting costs you ignore those that you don’t pay directly. When adding benefits, you include those that you will never realize.

      With New Math, anything is possible!

      1. Because we will always be a triple A rated country.

    3. They used legislation to amend the laws of supply and demand, and of cause and effect.

      Next they will cure obesity by amending the law of gravity.

      Legislation is magic.

      1. Didn’t Obama just administratively save companies a bunch of money by mandating higher fuel economy ? See, Magic.

        1. That’s true.
          Take all this “green” technology that doesn’t exist.
          By writing legislation demanding that it be invented, or at least by throwing research grants at some wicked smaht people, it will *poof* come into being!


          1. I believe the number was something like 55 mpg for passenger cars. What But, as long as you’re mandating, why stop there. Mandate 100 mpg or 200 mpg. Think of the savings if you madated 500 mpg.

            1. Now you are just being ridiculous. But 68 mpg or 79 mpg would probably work. Excess profits you know.

        2. I read the other day that the government is talking about CAFE standards for long hall trucks. Apparently, no trucking company has ever and will never think of reducing fuel costs as a way to make more money without the government mandating it.

          1. Combustion engine efficiency has hit the law of diminishing returns (repeal legislation is pending), so reducing weight is about it. But reducing weight violates safety regulations.
            Like round here they passed a law saying you must give a bicycle three feet of space. But what if the only way to do so is to cross the center line? And there’s a cop behind you who has had a bad day? What do you do?

            1. Yes cars are much less safe thanks to CAFE. Worse still, all of the time and energy car companies have put into efficiency could have been put into things like safety and reliability. CAFE standards are one of the worst pieces of government idiocy.

            2. sarc,

              Are you from N.O.?

              1. Uhhhh, no?

      2. There’s no need to amend the law of gravity to bring down the obesity rates. Just change the definition of obesity. That is, afterall, how they government created the obesity epidemic in the first place.

  2. Next you are going to tell me that government regulations are manipulated to benefit powerful interests. Never!!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.