“I saw that in the literal sense, China was freer than America.” Brandon Ferdig compares freedoms and their limits.
My friend, Susan, attends a very liberal liberal-arts college. It offers no majors or class requirements. The intention is to remove all roadblocks from a student pursuing their interests. I thought it sounded great. In high school and college I hated having to take classes I didn’t want. Also, I thought about the whiz kids whose gifts were being held back by requirement detours and the other students I knew who wanted to be in shop class but were forced to read Dickens.
Susan contrasted her college experience with her days at a parochial boarding high school. There she had curfew. But Susan is a bird of her own feather and would often stay up late studying. For this, she was punished.
I see the best in people when they are free to spread their wings, unfettered by policy holding them back for being “too young,” “too irresponsible,” or because “it’s too late to be up.” “Treat people like adults, and they’ll act like adults,” I liked to say. Broad-brushing policy groups police people and remove a sense of identity and responsibility.
But there was a problem with my thinking. It wasn’t that I was wrong; I just always failed to see the other side.
Last summer, I took part in a nine-day stay at a tai chi school on a mountain in Hubei Province, China. There, I and the ten or so other attendees awoke at 5:30 each morning and were on the road jogging by 6:00. We practiced together; we ate together. Days were structured, directing my time and actions, and the group provided support to strive higher and stay focused. Restrictions and control rub me the wrong way, yet my freedom at this school was restricted, and my life was enhanced by the experience. Counter-intuitively, the structure concentrated my activities, freeing up more of my time to do with as I pleased.
Sure, I could have done this activity on my own, relying on my own discipline to get up early and out the door. But I hadn’t. And following my training, I tried to keep the routine going. That first morning after I left the school, I rose from bed and noticed immediately how much harder it was to do so when there wasn’t the expectation of a schedule given to me.
So my motto about always treating people like adults simply isn’t always true. (Or maybe it isn’t so juvenile to have rules.) Being overly concerned about the wrongs that rules may lead to misses the point of them, for the majority of adults benefit, at least at times, from being given orders.
Susan also says of her liberal, liberal-arts college that many seniors she knows have no idea what topic to write their graduate thesis on. This is unnerving as they’ve spent 4 or 5 years of their life, shelled out a ton of money ($43,000/yr tuition), and now can’t decide why they did so. (And this is after a competitive screening process presumably designed to accept only those who would succeed in this kind of environment.)
I had to think that some of these students would have benefited from a few orders. I also wondered whether this same argument for directives and mandates could be made in support of the Affordable Care Act.
Freedom, I realized from my experience in the tai chi school, is a malleable notion. And that was made evident all year I was in China.
In China, I saw two teenage boys playing one of those claw crane games—you know, that fun arcade/vending machine that requires the user to direct a claw over their desired item, hit a button, and then hope that the claw grasps and retrieves it. Well, back in China, inside the machine weren’t cute fuzzy froggies and teddy bears.
Inside were packs of cigarettes.
In this strange example—and others—I saw that in the literal sense, China was freer than America. In areas of smoking, drinking, seatbelt use, car seat use, and driving laws, Chinese citizens are freer to choose whether or not to use them or not, without state intervention. Figuratively, China also seemed to me to offer a greater camaraderie of people out in the streets. I saw neighbors interacting and relaxing, kids walked home by themselves after school, and the police were more approachable. Things just felt more free. Meanwhile, however, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) shapes these people’s lives by limiting many activities—speech, religion—that we in the West believe are fundamental human rights.
|
America offers greater personal freedoms to say, read, and believe as people like, while it is also more rigid when it comes to personal safety: drinking laws, curfews, and no toys with McDonald’s Happy Meals.
|
So while Chinese citizens live in more of a bubble, created by the CCP, within that bubble, people relied more on personal choice than people do in the United States. America offers greater personal freedoms to say, read, and believe as people like, while it is also more rigid when it comes to personal safety: drinking laws, curfews, and no toys with McDonald’s Happy Meals.
Depending on who you ask and how you define freedom will determine which place is freer. And what we in America think is universal—what makes a country better—isn’t always so. The Chinese I got to know preferred their system, and from looking around while over there, I could see why. Americans get on China’s case for not having democracy but freedom of choice for one’s leadership doesn’t look like such a good trade when people in a democracy repeatedly elect bad leaders.
Also, one can’t know the repercussions of this ruling. So I try and ignore the cheerers and the moaners about the recent Supreme Court ruling. Anyone happy or upset probably isn’t so because they care about people getting healthcare; they’re overjoyed or angry because they’re either relieved or scared their ideology was supported or threatened. It’s either Heaven or Hell to them, and we all know we’re on Earth.
The truth is, there’s a lot to consider when reviewing this case. I saw the way orders benefitted me, but there’s also a difference between voluntarily committing oneself to a period of structure and having it forced upon you.
The strongest point I do believe in is what the law indicates.
Let’s say this law does benefit our country. What does that say about America that we have to force people into an activity they ought to make on their own anyway? This is nothing to cheer.
Also, I believe, in a death-by-papercuts kinds of way, that each freedom lost is another slit into our humanity—so small that you may not detect the cost. But paper cuts add up. More people get healthcare now—because it’s a law. Fewer people smoke now—because we tax the heck out it. More people wear seatbelts—because we fine them if they don’t. Get the picture?
By making an action a law, the state is replacing the right reason to do it. The law has the capability of shunting an activity of self-care into the realm of “because the state says so.”
And while I appreciate China’s own version of freedom—that it showed me how different can also be good—I also saw while living there a culture lacking the independence and initiative in technological and expressive endeavors that America has historically exhibited.
It’s this I’d hate to see papercut.
Read more about Freedom on The Good Life.
—Photos courtesy of the author
About Brandon Ferdig
“The Chinese I got to know preferred their system…”
Well, sure, if you don’t know anything better…many of my closest relatives who escaped long ago may go back for brief visits but certainly do not prefer that system over that of the U.S. ….and they have been here in the U.S. for 5 decades…
I have heard the stories about families ripped apart because of who were considered “true revolutionaries” vs. “landlords”…I know stories about executions and torture during the years of Mao’s rule and his efforts to rout out his detractors…perhaps what people will say while still trapped in that fish bowl will differ once they get out…
I also know venture capitalists who go back and forth between China and the U.S. …these people float on a jet stream of privileges and financial power unheard of for the typical commoner back in the 60′s….My mother will occasionally say something positive about the system back then…but she realizes it was the view from a poor myopic ignorant little girl in an oppressed system…sure it seemed like there was less petty crime then (when they punished thieves and political enemies so fiercely)…..
As the son of an immigrant who grew up during the Cultural Revolution (and escaped to America) and is currently visiting family in Beijing, I can attest to this. There is a strong culture of corruption here (one of my father’s cousins is a banker, and I was shocked by 3000-yuan dinners in a country where the cost of living is such that one could pay 10-50 yuan for a decent meal and 2 yuan for a breakfast). For the record, one US dollar is roughly 6 yuan.
One caveat is that the Chinese government isn’t all fun and games for Chinese citizens. Setting aside certain western regions that seek autonomy, there are also many local “mass incidents” (the euphemism for protests). For example, just a few days ago there was a huge protest against plans for an environmentally-damaging industrial plant that turned violent, and the local police announced that organizers would be punished harshly. In this case, the protest was successful, but the Chinese people are left without bad leadership and without any easy, legal way to hold leaders accountable.
Many everyday young Chinese people, especially in the cities, have the privilege of being able to ignore many of these issues. They don’t have that many issues, so they don’t need to complain, and they’re safe staying away from politics. But the people who do experience problems are left with almost no voice at all.
I do think you make a good point about structure often offering more freedom. This is something I’m currently struggling with, having worked hard to get to a point where my time is mostly unstructured (I’m a musician and need a lot of unstructured time) and yet still often finding it hard to get time that is truly “free.”
But I think using China to illustrate your point may not have been the wisest idea. And I have to take great exception to this: “Anyone happy or upset probably isn’t so because they care about people getting healthcare; they’re overjoyed or angry because they’re either relieved or scared their ideology was supported or threatened.”
Sorry, but my primary concern is whether people get healthcare. I can’t believe that more people haven’t either experienced themselves or had someone close to them experience the situation of losing their job and being uninsured, possibly after a long term employment situation when they are middle aged and just starting to develop health problems. Suddenly, they may have paid into a policy for 20 years when they were healthy but now no insurance company will accept them, or if they do, it’s at an astronomical rate. And then if they get sick they might be looking at a 6 figure hospital bill, as was one very dear friend of mine who lost his insurance and then had to have an emergency heart bypass. Not to mention, if he’d been insured he might have been able to avoid the surgery, because he’d have had preventative care and the doctors might have found and treated his heart disease when it wasn’t so serious.
If you haven’t experienced something like this or had any loved ones experience something like this, you’re simply lucky. That’s all there is to it. And I’ve just been agog that anybody would dare to take the focus off this crucial thing – making sure that these situations don’t happen anymore – and instead turn it into “what’s going to get Barack Obama out of office” and lying through their teeth about what is and isn’t in this health care program.
Ideologically, I would have preferred a single payer program. I think that would be the simplest and most efficient thing, and I find the whole idea of health insurance for profit abhorrent. So it pains me that I’ll still have to buy insurance from these scumbag private companies, but at least they can’t just drop me or refuse to cover me if I get sick, and they have to spend the money I give them on actual health care instead of outlandish CEO salaries and lobbying against healthcare reform.
And that’s the bottom line. People are going to get the care they need, and insurance companies won’t be able to get away with the crap they’ve gotten away with for decades. These things make a meaningful difference to people’s lives, for fuck’s sake! And that’s all I really care about. I don’t expect a perfect system, I don’t think there’s any such thing. But for anybody to dare to suggest that we should do nothing because this plan is “socialist” or any of the other bald faced lies they’ve spread around…. while meanwhile people continue to fall through the cracks of the healthcare system and die or go bankrupt or live with untreated chronic conditions… well, that’s just plain evil. No nicer word for it.
@LF
“Sorry, but my primary concern is whether people get healthcare.”
“I find the whole idea of health insurance for profit abhorrent.”
- The second statement not only contradicts the first (since a company can be profitable and still offer accessible healthcare), but is a perfect example of a reactive response to a threatened ideology.
” they have to spend the money I give them on actual health care instead of outlandish CEO salaries and lobbying against healthcare reform.”
- The major healthcare companies actually supported Obamacare’s passage because they will benefit financially when the government subsidizes those that can’t pay their entire monthly premiums themselves, i.e. the companies will get millions in taxpayer money. I don’t know if your statement is an example of “lying through your teeth” or just plain ignorance of the facts.
“Ideologically, I would have preferred a single payer program. I think that would be the simplest and most efficient thing”
- Name one large government program that is either simple or efficient. They don’t exist.
Luckey:
“The second statement not only contradicts the first (since a company can be profitable and still offer accessible healthcare), but is a perfect example of a reactive response to a threatened ideology.”
Obviously you completely missed the point. The two statements don’t contradict each other at all because my whole point was that, despite the fact that Obamacare as it stands does not entirely fit with my preferred ideology (in terms of healthcare anyway, not necessarily overall), I support it and am fine with it because it actually does provide people with healthcare, and that’s my main concern.
“The major healthcare companies actually supported Obamacare’s passage because they will benefit financially when the government subsidizes those that can’t pay their entire monthly premiums.”
This is BS. The healthcare companies spent millions of dollars lobbying against Obamacare. Here is just one of many articles about this.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/06/25/busted-health-insurers-secretly-spent-huge-to-defeat-health-care-reform-while-pretending-to-support-obamacare/
Articles like this act as if it’s shocking news, but the entire time the healthcare debate has been going on, I’ve been reading articles naming huge sums of money being spent by the insurance lobby to defeat Obamacare. To the point where most people have no idea what’s really in it (“death panels,” anyone?)… so I don’t know what you’re talking about.
“- Name one large government program that is either simple or efficient. They don’t exist.”
Medicare works quite well, especially considering that by definition it applies to folks who will need a lot of care. And Canadians are quite happy with their single payer program, if you don’t count the few that the insurance lobby has dug up and put in the media to talk about how awful it is. I could go on but the whole idea that the government can’t run anything well is just as flawed as the idea that it should run everything. The current system of unregulated private insurance is incredibly costly and inefficient, and a single payer program would be much more efficient. Obamacare is somewhere in the middle. But if it gets the job done it’s fine with me.
“This is BS. The healthcare companies spent millions of dollars lobbying against Obamacare.”
- No. They spent millions against a single-payer system (which is not Obamacare)…and they won.
“Medicare works quite well,”
- Seriously? Medicare is rife with fraud and best case scenario is it will be bankrupt in just 12 years, with worst case being in 4 years. Quite well, indeed!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/04/23/trustees-medicare-will-go-broke-in-2016-if-you-exclude-obamacares-double-counting/
Single payer was never even on the table. The insurance companies continued to spend staggering amounts of money lobbying against it and advocating the defeat of Obamacare even after the current plan was already agreed upon.
And Medicare is not “going bankrupt.” The concerns that were cited in your link didn’t even start till 2008, and the projections presume that both revenues and costs will remain what they are – which they won’t. Stuff like this happens all the time and people have been predicting the “bankruptcy” of Medicare and Social Security since they started.
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/healthcare/Is-Medicare-Going-Bankrupt-Not-Really.html
The fact of the matter is that private insurance costs are rising much faster than Medicare costs, another point you fail to bring into the discussion.
Anyway, I didn’t come here to argue ideology. My point was, like I said, that regardless of ideology, I just want everyone to get healthcare when they need it. If private industry does it best, then I’d like them to provide it. If government does it best, then government should provide it. Private industry alone has not done a good job in this case, and pretty much every developed country except ours has figured this out a long time ago.
Even the “best” paternalistic laws have downsides. Look at mandatory seatbelts. It is entirely possible there is a better invention than the seatbelt. However no one has an incentive to figure out what it might be or experiment. Car seats are much worse since they are so ineffective. Still as long as they are mandated we have crippled innovation in the area.
Speaking as a westerner who has lived in China for a number of years…
I agree that the Chinese government is more repressive than our governments, and that the horrors of the Cultural Revolution are not all that far in the past. But I think the write is quite right – there are many aspects of Chinese life and society which do work better than ours and which we could benefit from learning from. Off the top of my head:
- Chinese people are generally more friendly towards people they know and family; and more generous.
- As the writer saiid, much more of a sense of freedom in many ways – although much less so in others.
- Chinese people work much harder than western people. Hmmm, okay, that’s a blanket statement, and maybe not entirely accurate. Chinese students certainly do; I may criticise the school system in other ways, but they do make our schools look pretty easy.
What does that say about America that we have to force people into an activity they ought to make on their own anyway?
Well that’s just the tragedy of the commons isn’t it? That’s any sort of social solution to a social problem. Often in life there are situations where the outcome can benefit everyone if everyone agrees to follow a few simple rules which as individuals they would do better to ignore, but if everyone ignored them everyone would be worse off. The usual example is fishing. If everyone fishes as much as they like the fish die out and everyone loses.
Seat belt use reduces injuries in car crashes which reduces the expense to everyone of treating those injuries, loss of work hours etc. Everyone benefits from having the agreed upon rule.
Smoking is a little different depending on if you think smokers cause society damage or not. On the one hand they have higher health costs but they also die early. In the case of smoking the ban justification is that smoking directly hurts other people.
Nice comments, David.
“Everyone benefits from having the agreed upon rule.”
But we also lose a bit of ourselves, too, which I argue further down. I believe a less independent citizen is a less productive and innovative one. So whether we benefit overall depends on weighing these factors against one another.
Again, I’ll say that if it’s the case that we have to force others to protect themselves, then that’s a bad indicator.
This whole question about how much structure is good to have might be one that splits America. It seems to me that those who are good self-starters and need less structure and less security to feel happy and “free” tend to impose their ideals on the majority which is cruel.
It also seems to me that men are expected to have to deal with less structure and more “freedom” than women are. I think a lot of women who tell themselves that men are better off do so because they happen to be people who value that sort of “freedom” and devalue the extra security that women have. But most people are not like this.
“In this strange example—and others—I saw that in the literal sense, China was freer than America. In areas of smoking, drinking, seatbelt use, car seat use, and driving laws, Chinese citizens are freer to choose whether or not to use them or not, without state intervention.”
Maybe in those few specific examples, but in general the PRC is pretty heavy handed when it comes to interfereing in people’s lives.
“Let’s say this law does benefit our country. What does that say about America that we have to force people into an activity they ought to make on their own anyway? This is nothing to cheer.”
Um, are you suggesting that individual people just aren’t getting health insurance even though they could? That is sort of what it sounds like you’re saying here. I’d argue no…it’s the healthcare system that is broken. The problem isn’t that individuals are deciding not to get healthcare because they can’t see the value in it, or are being obstinate, or whatever. The problem is that some people just don’t have access to healthcare. That’s a systemic problem.
I don’t know the statistics, but I believe the vast majority of people w/o health insurance don’t have it because they choose not to.
Yeah, that’s wrong. It’s a problem of having access to it. If you make too much money for medicaid, and you are too young for medicare, and you don’t have a job that provides medical insurance…you’re basically screwed. Finding affordable private health insurance that isn’t through your employer is basically impossible. I also know small business owners who basically don’t have any health insurance because they can’t afford it. I’m talking the “mom & pop” type companies. People want insurance…they just can’t afford it.
“Yeah, that’s wrong.” Heather, you can’t just say that without any data.
“Finding affordable private health insurance that isn’t through your employer is basically impossible.” I can say without hesitation that this is false. Last I checked, I could get private coverage for $60-$80/mo.
Yes, but what exactly is covered in such a plan? What is your co-pay or the limit to how much they’ll pay for a hospital stay? Do they pay for ambulances? Prescriptions? And prior to the ACA, would there be huge limits to getting that insurance if you had pre-existing medical conditions? Does that cover dental and vision? It’s not enough to say that cheap coverage exists…the point is that cheap coverage (that actually covers you worth a damn) doesn’t exist.
Some stats: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/health_nutrition/health_insurance.html
Specifically with regards to wage: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0157.pdf (If you scroll to the second chart, it shows information about people who are part of HMOs…I couldn’t find something that discussed wage among uninsured). I find the Full time/part time statistics to be particularly interesting when you consider how difficult it is becoming to find full time employment.
Thanks, Heather. I looked at a bit of the data and see that young adults don’t make up as big a slice as I thought, but who’s to say most still aren’t making the choice not to get it?
As for the plan I referred to, it had a $5K deductible. But so what? That’s what insurance was meant for–emergencies. In fact, a part of why it wasn’t $4K or even $3K is because we in America started to think every little expense should be covered.
We’re an insurance-happy country. I actually sold health insurance policies for 2.5 years, and I’d have people ask to buy our dental plans just for the comfort of being “covered”–nevermind that what they had paid for could’ve been bought with the money they used on premiums. Plus any emergencies like knocking a tooth out was covered under our health plan. The point is that people felt secure even though it wasn’t a good buy.
We come at this debate from two different sides. And though I like my logic; you are admittedly the pragmatist in this case. And I mean this as a compliment. Because though I may perfectly well have pointed out a culprit in high health costs, it doesn’t do anything to solve the problem. (People aren’t going to start paying cash for minor health visits. The momentum is going the other way.)
But I will add this: In my state–Minnesota–one cannot NOT be insured–unless it is their choice, because if one of the four allowed health care providers won’t take you, the state has a program that, by that pre-requisite, you are qualified for. Many other states already have a program like this. So why the ACA?
“But I will add this: In my state–Minnesota–one cannot NOT be insured–unless it is their choice, because if one of the four allowed health care providers won’t take you, the state has a program that, by that pre-requisite, you are qualified for. Many other states already have a program like this. So why the ACA?”
Because “many other states,” isn’t everyone. If you remember, back when the ACA was first being introduced it provided a “public option.” Basically it was meant to be the option for people who were otherwise unable to get insurance.
I’m coming at this from the position of someone who has family who can’t afford healthcare, and as someone who used to work in a doctor’s office in a town with a lot of people who were unable to get healthcare. Or who had healthcare that provided only minimal coverage. They were “paying cash” for their minor visits (or at the very least paying cash for their co-pay)…only they couldn’t afford even that, so we set them up on payment plans.
The current system means that a lot of people can call through the cracks, and that the number of people who can potentially fall through the cracks is getting larger. We are, as you say, an insurance-happy country…and that’s a problem, particularly for health care. You had people “ask for your dental plan” for he security, and that’s because yes, people like security…but if you can’t afford it, then you’re screwed.
Brandon, you’re really overlooking a lot of things in your arguments, and that’s a big part of the problem as to why people don’t understand what the problem is with getting healthcare.
First of all, as I pointed out earlier, there’s no way you could find insurance for $60-80 a month, even with a high deductible, unless you are young and healthy and most likely male (women are generally charged more for insurance, another thing ACA will prohibit). As you get older, your rates will go up. And if you had employer provided coverage and then lose your job, and you’re approaching middle age, getting private insurance will be problematic even if you’re healthy – and if you’ve developed any pre-existing condition meanwhile, you can forget finding any affordable plan. Just as a point of reference, I’m a woman in my late 40s and was unable to find any insurance plan, even with a $5K deductible, for less than $300 a month. This is with no pre-existing conditions and no prior claims other than routine lab work, I don’t smoke or have a family history of heart disease, and I’m in very good health. Yet, the minute I turned 45 my insurance premiums jumped 40%. Friends of mine who either are in their 50s and/or have conditions such as high blood pressure, are paying double what I pay, at least. It’s completely insane.
Second, the reason most insurance companies insist on covering routine doctors’ visits is not so much because people expect every little expense to be covered. It’s because they’ve done the math and they know that if people get annual physicals and other preventive care, the chances are much less (and it therefore costs the insurance company much less) that they will end up with a serious illness. And particularly low-income people are certainly more motivated to get preventive care if they don’t have to pay for it out of pocket. So you are more likely to save money getting a high deductible plan than to try and find a plan that doesn’t cover doctor visits.
Last, even if it were true that most people who don’t have health insurance “don’t choose to,” well, that’s also part of the problem. Healthy people who aren’t contributing to an insurance pool drive premiums up for everyone else who does have a policy. And, inevitably, a good percentage of people who think they “just don’t need insurance” end up in the ER due to an accident or otherwise end up suddenly ill. We all also pay the cost of that. Many of these folks go into bankruptcy. So people who can afford insurance but just choose not to get it are contributing mightily to the cost of health care and that’s why the individual mandate is necessary. I for one am not ready to say that somebody should be left to die or go bankrupt just because they were too shortsighted to buy insurance.
Like Heather said, many states actually don’t have any means for a lot of people to have access to insurance. Just because yours apparently does is no reason to ask “why the ACA?” Also, if a state already offers the same or better benefits as the ACA specifies as the minimum, the ACA says that state can continue with their own program (or develop one of their own, so long as it meets or exceeds the minimum coverage guidelines). In fact it is hoped that states will learn from other states which types of programs work most efficiently, by allowing for such experimentation with different programs.
So how is the ACA going to make your insurance cheaper? Why are costs so high? Therein lies the issue.
Well like I said, the costs are so high in large part because so many people are uninsured.
The way insurance companies determine what your premium is (assuming the actual cost of health care doesn’t change, which is another can of worms) is by two factors: 1) the size of the insurance pool, 2) the odds of any one person in that pool getting sick or injured, which they determine by your age and personal and family medical history, etc.
Just to simplify this, let’s say you work for a small company of 20 employees, and you get insurance through your workplace. Let’s say the majority of employees are young and healthy, and you don’t work a high risk job. So everyone’s rate would be pretty cheap. But 20 people is not a very big pool. If your company hired someone who developed a chronic disease that required continual expensive treatment, that one person would cause everyone’s rates to go up. Whereas if you work for a large corporation with a big insurance pool (thousands of employees), the one guy with the rare disease wouldn’t make much of a dent in everyone’s premiums. This, in itself, is pretty silly and one of the reasons a single payer plan makes sense: if there’s only one big insurance pool run by the government, pool size doesn’t factor into anything anymore. Everyone is simply sharing the risk of some people getting sick.
Now consider the fact that there are millions of uninsured people, many of them young and healthy. They could be paying into a pool, which would increase the size of the pool and decrease the odds of any one person getting sick or injured. That means everyone’s premiums would go down. But because so many people aren’t paying into any insurance plan at all, it drives the costs up for everyone else who is. And that’s one of the things the ACA addresses by having a mandate to buy insurance. The more people have insurance, the cheaper it is for everybody. Insured people also don’t end up in the ER for minor illnesses that they then can’t pay for, which is also reflected in the overall cost of all of our premiums.
Then there’s the fact that with private insurance companies, a great deal of the money we spend on premiums doesn’t actually go to health care. It goes to pay executive salaries, lobby politicians, etc. The ACA requires that only 15% of our premiums can be used for anything other than health care, and if they have spent any more than that, they have to cut a refund check to the policy holders. I should be getting a check this month in fact.
Also, the ACA provides for people who’ve been turned down because of pre-existing conditions or can’t afford insurance because of them, to join “high risk pools” administered by the states. These pools are put into an exchange where insurance companies can compete to provide insurance to those folks. So that will also help keep premiums lower.
I could go on, but it gets complicated and those are the biggest money savers in a nutshell.
Apart from what Heather said, you must be a young guy with no health issues. Insurance companies will keep jacking up the rate as you get older, and if you get sick or injured, forget it.
And that’s exactly the problem with the current system – a lot of people don’t see the problem because they’re currently young and healthy, and think they either don’t “need” insurance or that it’s cheap. Then they get a rude awakening in middle age, especially if they’ve been getting employer covered health insurance and then get laid off in middle age and all the years they paid into a policy while young and healthy no longer count for anything.