You know what source I am gonna "poo poo"? I think its fair to say you have no clue about my politics.
You need sources and data because theory is an ideal that doesn't always hold up to the complexity of real world variables and pressures, including economics. Also, current data doesn't align with your assumptions. The facts are quite opposite, spending and costs continue to rise (though maybe less of percentage than history) and more people are insured.
Per the source, need time to read it thoroughly. Its not the type of source needed though to support your claims that insured numbers are the same/equal as the past and that healthcare costs and spending are down. I have never seen an annual review, article or study that supports those claims. Considering the youngest reference in the link is 16 years old its irrelevant to my request.
On the other hand, if ACA is working than more healthy people insured (likely with the HDHP plan described in your link) and not using benefits than that would offset the costs of those of us with health problems using healthcare services. The numbers support that conclusion (i.e. drop in uninsured rate with an increased NHE spending yet decrease in rate of increase, though relatively negligible change).
Its also likely that the decrease in premium costs is associated with the 80/20 rule which limits profits insurance companies can make in correlation to costs/payouts. But I haven't seen much data that supports that interpretation yet as its still too soon and I am not sure they have to be transparent to the public yet.
But for your hypothesis to pan out would mean one of your underlying assumptions is false, specifically that more people aren't insured. But if you recognize more people are insured than yes "fewer" people may be seeking benefits per capita (insured), not raw numbers. But that is what the ACA and everyone who developed the bill knew was needed since its inception 25 years ago. We rely upon the healthy (and most commonly young) to pay into a system that currently don't need to buffer the costs of those who cash in on benefits. Its just that before the mandate those people often went uninsured or under-insured.
Health care costs to slow in 2014 - Jun. 18, 2013
Fair enough. But that document talks about people with WITH insurance choosing different behaviors. That article actually supports one of the goals of the ACA....reduce use of expensive services like ER visits that were driving such astronomical healthcare costs in the US. If HDHPs are driving people to GPs and InstaCare facilities rather than ERs than the bill is working in one regard. Most everyone agreed that the abuse of historical services was a part of the problem. Our medical system, including insurance, needs to both prevent long term health problems and drive people to the appropriate level of care which was not happening in the past.
Its also fair to highlight the changes to recommended services that came from working professional organizations (i.e. not "death panels). Insurance companies are cutting back on services that are not on recommended lists for most people because of the incentives to hospitals and doctors that we are inherent part of the pay to treat and test model versus the ideal of "prevention" most people agree is needed for insurance to be a sustainable system. By cutting back on unneeded testing, especially imaging, major medical facilities are cutting noticeable costs.
What happened to Obama's promise(or lie) that my insurance costs would go down by $2,500 a year-did Gruber tell him to say that. Both pieces of shit in my opinion Gruber should best case be put to death, worst case pay back all the fees he made and serve 10 years in jail
I didn't pay attention to specific promises about the ACA as I was fundamentally against it as it passed, as I have already stated. If he promised healthcare premiums would drop by $2500 a year than that was an outright lie. If on the other hand they meant the ACA would have the affect of comparatively reducing premium costs from year to year than they may have a leg to stand on (i.e. the link you provided shows an annual decrease in healthcare costs), though not likely $2500, more likely a few hundred the last few years. If they meant that on average we would spend $2500 less per household on healthcare than without the ACA....that seems like a fair estimate. I know most people I know who use their benefits have ended up saving money compared to the past. My healthcare spending between 2009 and 2014 was noticeably different on a percentage basis. But I don't know which one he promised as I have learned to be skeptical and cynical enough to ignore election year promises and look more at the gestalt of the candidate.
I for one don't mind the George Carlin approach to holding candidates accountable to their promises....as long as its done consistently across the board. I have a feeling there would be as many Obamas in jail as politicians who have fantastical promises about the "free market". They all use hyperbole and hype.