General Discussion

everyonematters

(4,024 posts) Wed Dec 17, 2025, 11:42 AM Dec 17

There needs to be more control over the insurance companies in the ACA.

The insurance companies in the ACA are not competing. They are colluding. As long as you have only a few companies in each exchange, that is going to happen. So, they continue to raise the premiums, and the subsidies are chasing the premiums costing the taxpayers more and more money. This raises the cost to employers because if they don't buy from them there, they can make so much money in the ACA. There either needs to be direct control on the premiums, or a public option put in. Most of the Republican's answer to this is to stunt the subsidies which will make the ACA unaffordable to many, reducing the number of the insured. The Democrats are at least publicly ignoring the problem. You can say we need to go to a single payer system, but that is not going to happen any time soon.

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

There needs to be more control over the insurance companies in the ACA. (Original Post) everyonematters Dec 17 OP

And Republicans just want people without insurance to die Johnny2X2X Dec 17 #1

Many of the observable gotchas in the ACA like the one you mention are there on purpose AZJonnie Dec 17 #2

"or a public option put in" ... If GOP does this first we're screwed. They could stupid their way into PO and win uponit7771 Dec 17 #3

Memories from 2010 Finance committee hearings karynnj Dec 17 #4

I've got a better idea, institute a National Health system - like Britain, Canada, western Europe, etc. TomSlick Dec 17 #5

Johnny2X2X

(23,693 posts)

1. And Republicans just want people without insurance to die

Reply to everyonematters (Original post)

Wed Dec 17, 2025, 11:49 AM

Dec 17

The ACA isn't perfect, Conservatives fought to make it not perfect. But it's a helluva lot better than going back to the old system.

AZJonnie

(2,839 posts)

2. Many of the observable gotchas in the ACA like the one you mention are there on purpose

Reply to everyonematters (Original post)

Wed Dec 17, 2025, 11:52 AM

Dec 17

Because the Dems working on it gave the (out of power) GQP a lot of input throughout the process, because they thought the program would do better and be longer lasting if it were "bi-partisan". Nice thought but then, after getting their way on many aspects of the final draft, the flying monkeys stabbed Dems and Obama in the back and voted against it in Congress, en masse. Then they've lied and said Dems decided EVERYTHING and shut them out of the process and other such rot ever since

I do think there are *some* cost controls built in, though

uponit7771

(93,491 posts)

3. "or a public option put in" ... If GOP does this first we're screwed. They could stupid their way into PO and win

Reply to everyonematters (Original post)

Wed Dec 17, 2025, 12:36 PM

Dec 17

karynnj

(60,788 posts)

4. Memories from 2010 Finance committee hearings

Reply to everyonematters (Original post)

Wed Dec 17, 2025, 01:09 PM

Dec 17

The logic behind the public option was exactly that. The insurance companies would have to compete with it and theoretically the market would force them to price completely. However, there were not 60 votes because Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Pryor, and Ben Nelson were all against it ... as were all the Republicans.

Olympia Snowe proposed initially starting with no public option, but metrics showing lack of competition would trigger making one available. Her logic was the trigger alone would foster competition. Incidentally, even with no public option, she voted yes in the committee vote saying she did not want to be on the wrong side of history ... then like all Republican Senators voted no on the Senate floor!

Republicans, like Snowe, Collins and others who had in past Congresses sponsored healthcare plans similar to the format of ACA, all voted lockstep against the plan. 2010 was the last and only time when we had the strength to pass anything comprehensive on healthcare. ( Back then there was far less support for even weakening the filibuster - such as a proposal to lower 60 to 55.)

TomSlick

(12,881 posts)

5. I've got a better idea, institute a National Health system - like Britain, Canada, western Europe, etc.

Reply to everyonematters (Original post)

Wed Dec 17, 2025, 08:38 PM

Dec 17

Institute a National Health system - like Britain, Canada, western Europe, etc. Medicare for all is a second best alternative.

Reply to this discussion