Affordable Care Act Hasnâ€™t Made Health Care Affordable, Study Finds

Despite its name, the primary goal of the Affordable Care Act was to expand health care coverage to millions of Americans who had been uninsured. And while it's done that - 15 million non-elderly adults have gained coverage - making that insurance "affordable" remains a significant challenge.

Government subsidies for enrollees with incomes below 400 percent of the federal poverty level were designed to help with that, but rising premiums and high deductibles mean that getting health care coverage and treatment remains a financial burden for many Americans. A new study from the Urban Institute shows just how high the toll can be.

The study found that the median single enrollee earning between $35,310 and $47,080, or a family of four earning between $72,750 and $97,000, will spend almost 15 percent of their income next year on Obamacare insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs in 2016, even with federal government subsidies. The percentages increase for those with worsening health and those over age 45. And 10 percent of people in the income range the Urban Institute researchers looked at, between 200 percent and 500 percent of the federal poverty level, will spend more than 21 percent of their income on health care costs.

Although there's no objective standard for how much people should spend on health care, "a lot of people make the judgment that it's unaffordable and that makes a real impact," says Matthew Buetggens, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute and co-author of the study. A Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that cost is the main reason the uninsured give for why they lack coverage.

Of course, steeper health care costs aren't just limited to those covered by Obamacare - people with employer-based plans are also going to see larger premiums and out-of-pocket costs next year.

Anybody purchased new glasses lately? I took several of my children to the eye doctor this week in order to use our insurance benefits before the end of the year. Two needed glasses. The copay for the glasses was $10 each. The costs of the glasses were completely covered except for the copay. Then they added the Obamacare tax on medical devices. The taxes made the cost for two pairs over $120. What should have cost a maximum of $20 was over $120. If we didn’t have insurance, the cost would have been about $800. I will be looking into purchasing glasses online in the near future. You can’t try on the glasses, but the frames are a whole lot cheaper.

Thank you for referencing that article NormsRevenge. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

Regarding the title of the referenced article, what were people expecting from unconstitutional Obamacare when the corrupt Washington Cartel would not even read the Obamacare bill before they passed it?

And speaking of the constitutionality of Obamacare, please consider this. As mentioned in related threads, regardless what lawless Obamas activist justices want everybody to believe about the constitutionality of Obamacare, previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified the following about the constitutionality of a national healthcare program.

The states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate healthcare purposes. This is evidenced by the excerpts below from Supreme Court case opinions.

With respect to the Obamacare mandate which institutionally indoctrinated justices declared to be constitutional, especially note the fourth entry in the following list, the excerpt from Paul v. Virginia, where the Court had clarified that the feds have no Commerce Clause power to regulate insurance regardless if an insurance policy is negotiated across state borders.

”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” - Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” - Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” - Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
” 4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce [emphasis added] within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract of indemnity against loss.” - Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
”Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” - Linder v. United States, 1925.

Remember in November !

Patriots need to support Trump, or whatever conservative they elect, by also electing a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support the president.

An added bonus to such a Congress is that it can fire activist justices.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.