The problem isn't obamacare.
The problem is that we, as a society, invest in/subsidize physician education, pharmaceutical companies and medical technologies. While all of this is great, it effectively causes health care costs to rise much faster than economic growth--i.e. we can't keep and haven't been keeping up since the 1960s.
In response, the Nixon administration effectively dismantled the regulations protecting Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and established the current HMO system we have today under the reasoning that competition would drive down prices. Unfortunately, this did not slow costs, it accelerated them due to the fact that one BCBS was replaced by iterated inefficient corporate bureacracies that like to spend more on marketing than on services provided. HMOs, it turns out, do not compete so much as they ciricle the wagons, price-fixing style, and coordinate through shared lobbying agencies.
Obamacare, believe it or not, was designed to put a band aid on problems of access, especially for those with pre-existing conditions. The original idea was to offer a public option through medicaid/medicare--which would have driven down HMO prices. Unfortunately, the lobbyists from the industry spent enough so that the public option was stripped from the ACA when it passed. Obama fought for the public option, but the lobby had so many congressmen in its pocket that, ultimately, the ACA/Obamacare, as it was ammended (actually re-written by the industry lobby) ended up expanding the HMO customer base via mandate w/out offering any way of driving down the prices.
Hence it is no surprise to me that HMOs are trying to take us vapers for a ride. It's just what they do--extract as much wealth as possible from us while providing as few services as possible.
Meanwhile our peer nations have a chuckle as they provide universal access and better health care outcomes at a fraction of the cost. For example, US citizens spend, on average, $8000 per person/per year on health care (18% of our GDP)--shouldering the highest costs in the world. Meanwhile 1/3 of our ciizens are uninsured or underinsured and our healthcare outcomes are 37th behind Slovenia. We have the best doctors, technology, pharamaceuticals--but if 1/3 of our population can only gain access to them under catastrophic conditions, it creates extraordinary inefficiency and expenditure for the population.
Norway spends roughly $5000 per person/per year (comparatively lower when you consider their per capita average income is $20,000 higher--roughly 11% of GDP). They are able to cover everyone and their health outcomes are 11th in the world.
The saddest part is that the debate in the US is: does Obamacare suck or not? Or: is the government stealing my money? This debate is being framed by HMO lobbyists and their PR firms.
The real debate should be: what is Norway doing and how can we do that?
Would you really oppose the "socialism" of a system like Norway's if it put $4000 back into your pocket, freed up 7% of our GDP for investment in economic growth (i.e. a lot more jobs, better jobs), provided access universally, all while increasing the health of everyone?
