I’m not arguing Obamacare significantly reduced healthcare inflation, just countering the argument that the system is exploding.
Well, it’s not exploding because the insured pool is getting riskier, which is what most commentators have focused on these last years. But the 26% invincibles level is making the system less and less sustainable over time. If it’s not sustainable, it’s not sustainable.
An explosion would see healthcare inflation spike, rather than remain in line with historical trends.
Disagree that an “explosion” would cause a spike in the private insured marketplace. The private insured marketplace is many times larger than the ACA marketplace, and its size therefore makes its inflation movements less volatile.
In this article I focused on the politics of healthcare, namely if they will become more favorable for Trump in the future. While it’s possible the ACA collapses on its own, most likely the status quo will continue. The political hurdles will remain, and circumstances will not force anyone’s hand (though the administration could try to push things by undermining the system).
I quite agree. I think the Democrats should be happy that after a century, they’ve established in the minds of the electorate that there needs to be AT LEAST a governmental alternative that gives us a de facto “universal care system. I would point out that if the ACA fails, they put that achievement at risk by demanding that its replacement take some sort of specific form (e.g., “single payer”).
It seems, sometimes, that the Democrats have a problem accepting the fact that they’ve succeeded at something. :-)
Calling “the people who actually pay those premiums unsubsidized” the “primary engine of job growth in the US” is overstated.
Point is that small business is, and has always been for decades, the engine of growth of the US economy.
"The Engine of Job Growth in America"
The President discusses jumpstarting small businesses in Nashua, New Hampshire. Today, President Obama held a town hall…
And small business startup is at a 40-year low:
U.S. startups near a 40-year low
New business creation in the U.S. (a fancy way of saying "startups") is at nearly a 40-year low. Only 452,835 firms…
Now, I’m too good of a statistician to state, and you’re too smart of a commentator to let me get away with, claiming that that correlation is causal. There are too many variables affecting the latter to make that assumption. But, there’s no question that since the former increases the startup costs on the latter, it’s a factor to at least some degree, if not a major one.