If you look at the numbers, the rate increases didn't change significantly when the ACA was put into practice. The only exception is the first year, when companies weren't sure what the appropriate pricing should be.
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/mikepatton/files/2015/06/Heal...
It did for our company, we had an HMO as the insurance provider for us. Company of about 40 people or so.
The government does not, so far as I am aware, set the prices of the plans. Therefore it is nonsensical to claim that "the government itself doubled the price".
Now, if one were to claim that the government failed to do anything that had the effect of reducing the cost of health care or health insurance, then I would completely agree.
For example, there is nothing to prevent someone from signing up for insurance, having some expensive medical procedures performed, and subsequently dropping the insurance. I have personally heard reports from insurance agencies that some people do in fact do this. And I can't say I'm surprised, either; even after factoring in the tax penalties, it's probably a completely economically rational thing to do in a lot of cases.
My evidence is that the premiums for my insurance went up even before ACA passed just in anticipation. That is exactly what the health insurance representative told us.
It was pretty clear why it happened. After ACA passed it kept going up a higher rate for us than in previous years (I have data for 3 years before).
> What evidence is there that the government itself doubled the price of the plan? The government doesn't collect the money, and it certainly goes somewhere...
Isn't it a bit disingenuous to suggest that the increase in health insurance is unrelated to legislation regulating health insurance. Or to put it another way is there evidence that government regulation didn't affect the prices and something else did?