There is basically no real cost control in the bill, with the logical consequence being that insurance companies will do what they can get away with to raise premiums so that the new premium rate minus subsidies equals the old premium rate. The extra requirements of the ACA, and the lack of universal roll-out basically ensures that there are plenty of excuses for doing so.
> False. The ACA imposed a minimum 80-85% medical loss ratio on insurance companies. This is a cost control.
That's not a cost control. That's a price inflater!
If the only way for them to make more money is to have the price of things go up, what do you expect they're going to be in favor of? In a perfect world (from the perspective of the insurance company), everything from premiums to procedures goes up X% so that their profits go up X%.
That's a seriously messed up system and may be the most egregious part of the entire ACA.
Insurers have to compete against other insurers on price. Otherwise they lose market share. All of them negotiate hard with providers to drive down prices.
Did it? As an industry, hospital and lab management companies outperformed the general stock market (which itself was doing very, very well) for 2010-2015. Compare VHT vs VTI, for example.
The creation of exchanges was so that insurance companies would have to compete in a market where customers had an apples to apples comparison tool. Theoretically, that should drive down rates in places where there are enough insurance companies for market forces to take over.
