Here’s What Obamacare Has Done for People and Insurance Companies So Far

Since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law in March 2009, health insurance has undergone a slow and deliberate overhaul. Before the full implementation began this year, numerous changes to insurance policies were made incrementally to allow insurance companies to adjust to the new landscape. For example, six months after being signed into law, it was announced that children could remain on their parents’ policies until age 26, and children could not be denied due to preexisting conditions. Over the next four years, changes such as preventive care (i.e. annual exams), as well as birth control for women had to be covered – all with no co-pay.

All of these changes were fought by Republicans, staunch ACA opponents since the bill was introduced during the first year of President Obama’s first term. Their arguments were numerous and varied, but usually boiled down to a few main arguments: the changes would be costly to Americans and insurance companies, result in less care and hurt small businesses. Now that the first open enrollment period has ended, facts are, once again, proving their protestations of doom were way off the mark.

While final numbers are still being calculated, it is estimated that almost 8 million Americans signed up for health insurance during the enrollment period beginning on October 1, 2013 and ending March 31, 2014 (due to technical glitches, the enrollment was extended for some until April 15). The signups included people previously insured by noncompliant policies, as well as those who had previously never had insurance. Nearly 5 million of the signups were people eligible for coverage under the Medicaid expansion. Of those that signed up through the exchanges, 85 percent qualified for federal subsidies.

The numbers do not include those who signed up for new policies directly through health insurance companies (i.e. not through a state or federal exchange), since it is believed that many of the new signups were people with pre-existing conditions previously denied coverage, a practice that is no longer allowed.

In 2011, insurance companies were required to meet the Medical Loss Ratio rule (MLR). This meant that companies were required to spend 80 percent of every premium dollar received from policyholders on medical claims (the ratio is 85 percent in large group markets). If that ratio was not met, meaning they spent less than the minimum required, insurance companies had to rebate the money not spent to policyholders.  In the first year, insurers paid a total of $1 billion in rebates, with the average per customer of $108. After two years, the amount paid due to not meeting the MLR has shrunk by half.

Contrary to predictions, insurance companies’ profits have not been affected.

The change is attributed to companies slashing overhead and administrative costs. The United States spends nearly three times as much as other developed nations on administrative costs for healthcare, largely due to our health insurance being distributed via private insurance. Countries with single payer have much lower overhead with comparable delivery of care.

The increased spending on actual medical care has also not reduced the benefits policyholders are receiving. In fact, benefits have increased under the law. In addition to changes in preventive care, many services that were deemed optional under the previous system, including pregnancy and adult immunizations, are now standard in all policies. There are also provisions for mental health care and other therapy treatments that would often not be covered under policies without paying a much higher premium – if they were covered at all.

It is estimated that consumers have received more than $3 billion in new benefits since the law went into effect.

Another opponent prediction was that huge job losses were inevitable as many employers would have to reduce the number of employees in order to keep operating. While there have been some (often debunked) protestations from CEOs blaming the costs of Obamacare for layoffs, most employers have adjusted to the new landscape, though employers have seen the larger of premium increases. In order to compensate, some employers have stopped providing coverage to part time employees and instead have helped them purchase insurance in the exchanges which would cost them less.

The coverage requirement for small businesses with fifty or more employees has been delayed until next year. The requirement will not be a huge change for most businesses as few small businesses have that many employees. However, the ACA has already changed the landscape in a somewhat surprising twist: an increase in entrepreneurs and new small businesses.

The new protections under the ACA are most beneficial to those on the individual insurance market. Now that these polices have protections in place, people are no longer forced to remain in a job in order to receive health coverage. This has provided incentives to many who otherwise felt trapped by their circumstances. Having saved or otherwise made a good living, some are choosing to retire early to start businesses. Others are leaving less fulfilling jobs for other companies that may not provide health insurance, but pay them enough to purchase insurance on their own – allowing them to pursue passions that had previously seemed out of reach.

In the end, consumers are receiving better health coverage, insurance companies are still making a profit and small businesses can compete with bigger companies for quality employees. Though the ACA is not without its problems and there is much room for improvement, evidence is mounting that the law is a crucial step in providing better health outcomes for Americans and will be instrumental in improving the economy.

Perhaps the real reason opponents have been fighting every step of the way is because they knew what many are just now figuring out: Obamacare works.

Love This? Never Miss Another Story.


Alber T.
Alber T.yesterday

I do like the manner in which you have framed this matter and it does provide us a lot of fodder for thought. Nevertheless, from just what I have experienced, I simply trust as the commentary pile on that folks stay on issue and in no way embark upon a soap box regarding the news du jour. Still, thank you for this excellent point and even though I do not necessarily concur with the idea in totality, I value the perspective. Cheap Commercial auto insurance in Houston

Alber T.
Alber T.yesterday

After I originally commented I clicked the -Notify me when new feedback are added- checkbox and now each time a comment is added I get four emails with the identical comment. Is there any means you may take away me from that service? Thanks! agency matrix

Janice Thompson
Janice Thompsonabout a year ago

I cannot afford my own healthcare at the rate Obamacare is cutting into it. I cannot afford to pay for all the illegals too.

Art G.
Art G.about a year ago

Tammy D. - I have no problem subsidizing the health care of those less fortunate than myself. I'm just saying that the $1000 per month that I pay to the thieving insurance companies that Obama awarded with the ACA should buy me insurance at least even half as good as the insurance that the lady in Florida gets for $3 per month, since I'm really paying for part of that, too. Now she can afford to go to the doctor, but I still can't. I can't hardly pay my monthly insurance bill (with the $6300 deductible). How is that fair?

It's not the rich that are paying for the health care of the less fortunate, it's the middle class. The ACA is a debacle. We need single payer or at least a public option. That's the only way I'll ever be able to afford real health care, and it smarts that the poor have it now, and I don't!

Tammy D.
Tammy D.about a year ago

Hey, G., stop dominating the board. No one else is getting a chance to express their views on this subject. I don't believe this is the forum for back-and-forth political debate, that, ultimately, is pretty futile.

Seems to me people are not grasping the concept that some people will pay more upfront, while some people will end up saving a lot by comparison. This is all with the idea that eventually things will level out, but that tax payers will still end up paying less total when everyone else is covered. You pay for the uninsured either way. This is more direct, and cheaper in the end.

Elizabeth Z.
Elizabeth Z.about a year ago

I hate Obamacare. Not only is it not affordable, I can't make a payment on any of the websites either. I get to waste my time sending a check in the mail. Lame!

K H.
K H.1 years ago

I was hoping I could find a much cheaper plan with this new health care reform, but in a nutshell I think my family has gotten stuck in an awkward "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation with our insurance, I'm pissed at myself for not having paid more attention but the insurance industry is also so full of bullsh*t jargon that I have trouble understanding a lot of the rules anyway, and I know I'm not the only one. I would love to see some kind of unbiased consumer protection classes being made available in high schools and college because I feel like a lot of people my age and younger are easy targets for unscrupulous insurance companies. Sometimes I feel like maybe I should have just not bothered to get insurance at all, like some of my friends did, I had just always been told that it was a responsible thing to do so when I could afford it I did it. Not living with parents now, I cannot afford it anymore.

Art G.
Art G.1 years ago

Speak for yourself when you say that "none of us" know the answers, Robert. You may not know the answers, but any good progressive paying attention does. I'll make you a list, in no special order...

- Repeal Citizens United, and McCutcheon with good campaign finance reform legislation (we don't even need a Constitutional Amendment)
- Bring back Glass-Steagall and break up the TBTF banks
- Honor the Clean Water Act by putting an end to fracking and mountaintop removal. Simply make energy companies follow the same laws that you and I have to obey. That's not really asking much.
- Repeal the NDAA
- Trash the TPP
- End unemployment with a new public works initiative to rebuild America's crumbling infrastructure
- Slash the military budget and pour the money we save into public schools
- Convert all educational loans to zero percent interest
- Instruct the FCC to regulate the internet so that its neutrality is preserved
- Institute single-payer health care, or at least develop a public option, so that the insurance companies can't keep ripping us off

These are just the bigger items. I could go on. And if you think Obama really wants to do any of the above, you're just not paying attention. You're not listening to the words coming out of his mouth! He could do a lot of it by executive order if he wasn't such a puppet for the oligarchy.

Robert Hamm
Robert Hamm1 years ago

Obama cant get a thing through this congress. They want him to rail anything. He didnt anticipate the complete total resistance to him being in the white house. I ddont think anyone anticipated the level of resistance.

Robert Hamm
Robert Hamm1 years ago

It has notning to do with talking points. The relaities are what they are. THe only reason it looked so easy for Bush is becase Bush was inline with their thinking. Busg cant get a thing through thiws congress. WE dont have any idea what deal Obama has to make to get some small number of things he wants to actually get done. its not excuse making. I simply dont know the answers none of us do.