Barack Obama Broke US Healthcare
The shocking assassination of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson in the heart of Midtown Manhattan has ignited a wave of rhetoric justifying disdain for private health insurance companies.
While this anger may reflect deep frustrations with the system, using it to rationalize such a heinous act is not only morally reprehensible but also a fundamental misunderstanding of the complexities of the American healthcare system.
Most Americans Are Content with Their Health Insurance, But Challenges Remain
When it comes to health insurance, most Americans appear to be relatively satisfied with their coverage. According to the 2023 Kaiser Family Foundation Survey on Consumer Experiences with Health Insurance, 81% of Americans rated their health insurance as “excellent” or “good.”
Similar results have been echoed in other polls, highlighting a broad sense of contentment with personal coverage across the country.
However, satisfaction doesn’t mean the system is without its frustrations. By their very nature, insurance companies work to ration care and control costs. Healthcare spending tends to balloon when subsidies shield providers from the need to consider affordability for their patients.
To keep expenses in check, insurers often limit options and deny claims for services outside a policy’s coverage.
These limitations, while unpopular, are not unique to private insurance. Every healthcare system, whether it’s a national single-payer model or an out-of-pocket structure, grapples with the same fundamental challenges. In countries with government-funded healthcare, rationing often takes the form of treatment delays or outright denial of certain procedures.
Despite these uncomfortable realities, most Americans seem far from open revolt against the system or the insurers tasked with managing it.
While no one enjoys dealing with denied claims or restricted options, these are widely seen as unfortunate but unavoidable aspects of balancing access to care and cost containment. The system may not be perfect, but for many, it’s far from broken.
At the same time, public confidence in the American systems of health insurance and health care has plunged since Barack Obama turned the nation’s politics inside-out to pass the Affordable Care Act in 2009-10. That speaks to the unintended consequences of those “reforms” for the people at the margins.
According to Gallup polls, public faith in the quality of American healthcare peaked at 62 per cent in 2010-12, and now stands at 44 per cent. Confidence in health insurance coverage peaked at 38 per cent in 2012 (before Obamacare was implemented), and now stands at 28 per cent. Both figures are the lowest since Gallup began polling the question in 2001.
“Reform” didn’t deliver. Obamacare required insurers to cover everyone, and tried to force healthy young people to buy into the same risk pools as the old and the sick. Instead of using tools tailored to those with pre-existing conditions, Obama’s plan insisted on spreading the cost of their care across all policyholders.
How Policy Choices Have Driven Up Health Insurance Costs
The rising cost of health insurance in the United States didn’t happen by accident—it was the predictable result of certain policy choices. One key factor is subsidies. When you subsidize something, its price often increases, as demand rises without an equal incentive to control costs.
This is exactly what happened with health insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The cost of policies soared faster than the political system could accommodate, leading to widespread frustration.
One of the ACA’s most controversial features—the individual mandate, which required Americans to buy private health insurance—faced significant public backlash and was eventually repealed by Congress.
Another driver of rising costs was the expansion of coverage requirements. Insurers were compelled to include an ever-growing list of benefits in every policy, including contraceptive coverage, regardless of whether the policyholder needed or wanted them. This understandably raised the cost of providing insurance, and insurers passed those costs on to consumers through higher premiums.
The system’s bureaucratic complexity also played a role. Medical bills often arrive months after treatment, leaving patients and insurers scrambling to address “surprise billing.” In response, insurers began requiring prior approval for non-emergency procedures. While this aimed to give patients clarity about what would or wouldn’t be covered, it also sparked criticism that essential care was being denied.
To speed up claim processing, insurers increasingly turned to AI tools. But this, too, drew backlash, with critics accusing insurers of letting machines make life-or-death decisions for human patients.
The root of the problem is simple: resources are finite. If insurers—public or private—are required to cover everyone, as the ACA mandates, they must find ways to control costs. This often means scrutinizing claims more closely or raising premiums. And when policies are forced to cover everything for everyone, the financial strain only grows. Some insurers respond by limiting their coverage options or leaving the market entirely.
Yet, many of the people pushing for these policies now express outrage over their consequences—namely, rising premiums and increasing rates of claim denials. The outcome was predictable. If you ask insurers to do more while ignoring basic economic principles, costs will inevitably rise.
Now, some advocates are resorting to pointing fingers or blaming the system for outcomes they helped create. In the end, the messengers—whether they’re insurers, bureaucrats, or AI systems—become the target, while the underlying issues remain unresolved.