"The Economist": Don't Kill Obamacare ("evidence is mounting that the law is working")

[Nye Bevan]

As the Supreme Court considers whether to gut Obamacare, evidence is mounting that the law is working

AMERICA’S health-care system is the costliest in the world, gobbling up 17% of GDP. The average for rich nations is only 9%; even the French spend less than 12%. Despite this avalanche of cash, one American in ten has no cover and American life expectancy, at 79, is four years worse than Italy’s.

The Affordable Care Act of 2010, better known as Obamacare, was supposed to deal with these problems. Five years later, Barack Obama’s most important domestic reform is unpopular (56% of Americans disapprove of it) and under renewed attack. This week the Supreme Court heard yet another legal challenge. In King v Burwell, the law’s opponents argue that its subsidies for individuals buying health insurance on the federally organised online exchanges are illegal (see article). They are unlikely to prevail but, if they do, the law will be gutted and the insurance market thrown into turmoil.

That would be a terrible shame, for Obamacare appears to be working better than expected. First, despite the incompetent rollout of healthcare.gov (the website that allows people to use the federal exchanges), the proportion of Americans who lack cover has fallen from 16.2% to 12.3% since 2009. Second, the previously terrifying pace of medical inflation has slowed. The amount that America spends on health care grew by 3.9% a year in nominal terms between 2009 and 2011—having grown by 7.3% a year in 2000-08. The trillion dollar question is: how much of this squeeze is because of Obamacare?

.....

As Americans age and Obamacare continues to extend coverage, federal outlays on health will probably start to grow again as a share of GDP over the next decade. America still spends far more than it needs to on health care, as the gap with other nations shows. But there is hope at last that health inflation can be made more manageable. Scrapping Obamacare and starting again from scratch would make this harder. Far better to build on what appears to be working. For the Supreme Court to rule for the challengers would be a woeful outcome.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21645730-supreme-court-considers-whether-gut-obamacare-evidence-mounting-law

I know not everyone here is a huge fan of The Economist, but this is a good, realistic article.

[mmonk]

1. Thanks. I hope this challenge is the last and it fails.

[ProfessorGAC]

3. On CSPAN WJ, Saturday Morning. . .

. . .even the guy on the other side on ACA said he thought the court would rule against his arguments.

So, there appears to be pessimism on the opposition side.

[mmonk]

5. I'm cautiously optimistic but nonetheless frustrated.

[ProfessorGAC]

6. Completely Understandable

My attitude toward the right has been one of "get over it". You didn't do anything at all and this is way better than the status quo. Not as good as most of us hoped for, but a positive step in the right direction.

And, if it actually is containing cost (assuming the current values represent long term trends), then that complaint gets 86'd too.

[mmonk]

7. It still gets me that the Republican Governors and Legislatures that have refused

Medicaid expansion resulting in closure of some rural hospitals haven't paid a political price yet. It would even be getting better results except for that.

[Gothmog]

2. The Affordable Care Act is indeed working

[mother earth]

4. My hope, is that all of the arguments lead to universal health care, single payer, because it is

what it should have been from the start.

You don't negotiate with big monied interests, you represent the citizenry & you forge ahead for the best for the nation, as a whole.

All this money spent arguing back and forth could've been put to use in actual health CARE.

I say what is good for those who have the best taxpayer-funded health care benefits, is good for the nation.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

8. I remenber when The Economist ...

presented information on steady-state economic models. They, at one time, understood the systems of continual growth were not sustainable.

Long gone are those days.