The Trump administration credits its fraud control efforts for the disappearance of millions of people from Obamacare rolls rather than a sharp rise in premiums — a claim disputed by policy experts that glosses over the reality that many more Americans now find themselves without health insurance.
Enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans fell by nearly 3 million this year to about 19.2 million, following steep premium increases by insurers and the Republican-led Congress’ unwillingness to extend more generous premium subsidies. On average, ACA customers are paying $178 a month in premiums this year, a 58% increase from 2025, according to KFF, while their deductibles — the amount consumers must pay annually before insurers pick up their share — have climbed 37% to nearly $3,800 a year.
“These are real people who are now forced to make impossible choices,” said Annalyse Keller, a spokesperson for Keep Americans Covered, a large coalition of lobbying organizations for the healthcare industry, including insurers and patient advocacy groups.
But a Department of Health and Human Services report released in June, written mostly by President Donald Trump’s political appointees and allies, asserts that 5.6 million people were fraudulently enrolled in ACA plans in 2025, and that the Trump administration removed 2.9 million of them — the same number as the 2026 drop in enrollment.
Then Health-insurance has become a misnomer? The name should now be Hospitalization-insurance instead?
Maybe. But it also covers “you need this $6000 test and a $2000 per month medicine”.
A.PPACA plan should cover that annual checkup without any preventative care without deductable or copay, however.
(And while inferior to Medicare for all or VA-like single-payer, our near-dystopian PPACA system is better than the “we cut you off right when you really need us” system it replaced.)
So “affordable” (of ACA) has been redefined by ability to meet the deductible? You don’t deserve “affordable care” until you’ve met the deductible?
More that it was branding intended to contrast with the prior system.
If the name of bills proposed in Congress meant anything more than branding then no one would be able to oppose the “Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act”, because its meaning of either “safeguard” or “American voter” is quite far from what the bill actually does.