The federal health-reform law "has accomplished its goal of expanding coverage � at a significantly lower cost than expected," columnist Ruth Marcus writes for The Washington Post "after talking to numerous health-care experts and examining the data."
Marcus writes up front, "There is a legitimate ideological debate about whether it is a wise use of federal power to require individuals to obtain health insurance or a wise use of federal resources to spend so much on subsidizing coverage. What�s more puzzling, and more disturbing, is the still-raging division over the real-world effect of the ACA."
She says President Obama "over-promised when he told people that, if they liked their health insurance, they could keep it; by its own terms, the law set new standards for required coverage. Certainly, some individuals, particularly younger and healthier customers, find themselves paying more; again, such winners and losers were an inevitable consequence of the individual mandate and minimum-coverage rules. Meantime, the scariest warnings � of employers rushing to drop coverage and insurance markets ensnared in death spirals of ever-rising premiums � have not come to pass.
Where the law has yet to fully deliver on its promises � and some wonder whether it will � is in the area of cost containment and quality improvement."
Marcus backs up her assessment with facts. For example, "Health-care costs and premiums for employer-sponsored insurance (the way most of us obtain coverage) have been rising at their lowest levels in years. On the exchanges, premium increases during the law�s second year mirrored that modest growth � averaging 2 percent on some mid-range plans and 4 percent on the lowest-cost ones, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation."
Marcus writes up front, "There is a legitimate ideological debate about whether it is a wise use of federal power to require individuals to obtain health insurance or a wise use of federal resources to spend so much on subsidizing coverage. What�s more puzzling, and more disturbing, is the still-raging division over the real-world effect of the ACA."
She says President Obama "over-promised when he told people that, if they liked their health insurance, they could keep it; by its own terms, the law set new standards for required coverage. Certainly, some individuals, particularly younger and healthier customers, find themselves paying more; again, such winners and losers were an inevitable consequence of the individual mandate and minimum-coverage rules. Meantime, the scariest warnings � of employers rushing to drop coverage and insurance markets ensnared in death spirals of ever-rising premiums � have not come to pass.
Where the law has yet to fully deliver on its promises � and some wonder whether it will � is in the area of cost containment and quality improvement."
Marcus backs up her assessment with facts. For example, "Health-care costs and premiums for employer-sponsored insurance (the way most of us obtain coverage) have been rising at their lowest levels in years. On the exchanges, premium increases during the law�s second year mirrored that modest growth � averaging 2 percent on some mid-range plans and 4 percent on the lowest-cost ones, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation."
Princess Health andWashington Post columnist looks at data, talks to experts and concludes Obamacare is working, at less cost than expected.Princessiccia
4/
5
Oleh
Gusty