October 20, 2010 1:52PM 

# Cost-Slashing? No, Cost-Shifting. 

By [Michael F. Cannon](https://www.cato.org/people/michael-f-cannon) 

---

<a class="js-popover-trigger cursor-pointer popover-trigger" data-bs-placement="bottom" data-bs-trigger="click" id="popover-trigger"> 

SHARE 

</a> 

Here’s a poor, unsuccessful letter I sent to the editor of the *Los Angeles Times*:

> Three and a half million Californians may become eligible for subsidized private health insurance in 2014 under ObamaCare \[“[3.5 million Californians would be eligible for healthcare tax credits, study finds](http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-health-insurance-20101005,0,5181993.story),” October 6\], but those subsidies will not “slash the cost” of their health insurance. As [ObamaCare](www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/BadMedicineWP.pdf) causes health insurance premiums to rise by as much as 30 percent, the private-insurance subsidies will *shift* those costs to taxpayers. A bipartisan majority of Americans [opposes](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/30/healthplan_n_725503.html) ObamaCare in part because such shell games increase costs rather than reduce them.

##### Related Tags 

[Government and Politics](https://www.cato.org/government-politics), [Health Care](https://www.cato.org/health-care) 

[![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) 
This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).