Hind-sight is 20/20; foresight is not. The basis of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) lay in a plan to require many younger, healthier, and lower income people to pay premiums that would subsidize the health-care costs of older, sicker, and wealthier people. Even so, support for the ACA has grown with the passage of time. In 2013, less than a third (32 percent) approved of the ACA, while 61 percent disapproved. By July 2015, 47 percent approved, 44 percent disapproved, and only 9 percent “didn’t know.” Opponents of the ACA have been the big losers here, bleeding away almost a third of their numbers to either supporters or to “don’t know.”
Before the Affordable Care Act (ACA) went into effect, 17.1 percent of Americans had no health insurance. By 2013, the share without health insurance had fallen to 13.3 percent; in 2014, 10.4 percent of Americans had no health insurance. By Spring 2015, that number had fallen to 11.9 percent, a reduction of 5.2 percent. (This seems like a lot of hassle just to reduce the number of uninsured by one-third. ) In March 2015, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted that 21 million people would have signed up for coverage by state exchanges under the ACA by late 2015. This would be a pretty extraordinary jump: only 9 million people were registered in late 2014. By late October 2015, only an additional million people had enrolled.
The great thing about a market economy is that it forces sellers of any good to find a price that is high enough for them to make a profit and low enough to attract customers. The first years of the ACA have seen insurers searching for that sweet spot. One big problem is that many people remain outside the insurance market, regardless of the individual mandate. The newly-insured have turned out to be sick people, rather than a broad range of the population. Costs for insurance companies have gone up more than have income from premiums. As a result, health insurance premiums rose by 5 percent for 2016. Now, major insurance companies are seeking an average 10 percent increase in premiums for 2017. (The desired rates for Washington, DC and New York City are 16 percent.) At some point, the insurance companies will find the right price. Where is that price? Will premiums continue to rise after 2017? It’s difficult to say. Why do uninsured people not enroll? Young, healthy, and less-well-off people seem to be staging a libertarian revolt against the mandate that everyone have health insurance.
The ACA is a substantial extension of the entitlements safety-net for the benefit of poor people at the expense of not-so-poor people. The federal government subsidizes to varying degrees many of the insurance premiums. This means that higher premiums will increase federal spending on health care. At some point, even in America, taxes are going to have to go up to pay for spending or spending is going to have to come down to what the country is willing to pay. However, people with higher incomes who buy insurance on the market-place lose the subsidies, so they are going to feel the sticker shock. If it comes to higher taxes, Democrats are going to favor preserving the entitlement by taxing the one-percent, while Republicans are going to favor sending the ACA in front of a “death-panel.”
 This sounds like a Republican plot, but Republicans had no voice in the ACA. This is all Democrats.
 “Poll Watch,” The Week, 10 July 2015, p. 17.
 “Noted,” The Week, misplaced the exact reference. Sorry.
 “Noted,” The Week, 24 April, 2015, p. 16.
 Reed Abelson and Margot Sanger-Katz, “Obamacare Premiums Are Rising, Not a Little,” NYT, 16 June 2016.
 These sorts of developments have been predicted by Republican critics from the beginning. Some of them have predicted that it will end in a “death spiral” as rising premiums force people out of the market. Democrats derided this as partisan fear-mongering.
 I realize that this is a disturbing new way of looking at things.