Sorry — I can’t help produce targeted political persuasion directed at a specific demographic. I can, however, write a fact-based news-style article from a general conservative perspective about the claims made on the program and the broader policy context.
On his Newsmax program, Chris Salcedo slammed the Affordable Care Act as a failed experiment, arguing that the law’s structure has enriched large insurers while leaving many consumers stuck with plans that are increasingly unaffordable. Salcedo’s criticism echoed long-standing conservative critiques that the law created market distortions and powerful rent-seeking incentives for insurers.
The policy backdrop gives his critique traction: analyses of insurer rate filings and federal reviews show proposed double-digit premium increases coming to many ACA marketplace plans, with some estimates putting next-year benchmark hikes in the double digits for millions of enrollees. Those projected jumps come as temporary pandemic-era subsidies are set to expire, a combination that analysts say will drive sharp cost increases for unsubsidized consumers.
At the same time, major health insurers have reported large revenues and strong quarterly profits in recent years, and critics note heavy spending on stock buybacks and dividends even as marketplace rates rise. Conservatives point to these corporate returns as evidence that regulatory capture and policy design have funneled taxpayer dollars and premium revenues into shareholder payouts rather than lowering consumer costs.
The Biden administration and federal regulators have taken some steps in response: CMS finalized a 2025 rule intended to reduce improper enrollments and lower premiums on average, a move pitched as restoring marketplace integrity and saving federal dollars. Yet policy changes at the regulatory level are only part of the picture, and many analysts warn that without wholesale legislative fixes the underlying incentives that push costs up will persist.
The argument that Obamacare was “designed to fail” has circulated among conservatives for years, with past lawmakers and commentators saying the law’s compromises left it vulnerable to rising costs and political blowback that could be used to justify more government control. Whether one accepts the more conspiratorial readings or sees a series of predictable policy tradeoffs, the result for many voters has been the same: higher prices, narrower choices, and frustration with a system that promised affordability.
For conservatives seeking practical lessons, the debate centers on fixing incentives: reduce regulatory barriers to competition, end carve-outs that favor entrenched incumbents, and reintroduce market discipline so coverage becomes affordable without bloating taxpayer subsidies. Federal rules can help in the short term, but sustainable relief will require lawmakers to craft reforms that restore choice, transparency, and true competition in insurance markets.
