Perspectives: Any Health Care Plan That Doesn’t Get Spending Under Control Is A Failure
Editorial pages write about ways to control rising costs associated with health care.
Bloomberg:
U.S. Needs To Cure The Health-Care Cost Disease
By this point, everyone knows that the U.S. health-care system is fundamentally broken. But every plan to fix it runs into a fusillade of opposition. This dynamic could be seen in the reaction to the Affordable Care Act, which remained unpopular for years after its passage. The Obamacare system substantially reduced the number of Americans who were uninsured, but costs kept growing: ...Most recently, Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren’s plan to pay for national health insurance has drawn criticism from both the right and the left, largely because of its cost. Bernie Sanders, who envisions a similar insurance system, promises that his funding plan will be more progressive than Warren’s. The expense of his proposal will undoubtedly receive even more fire from centrists and conservatives. (Noah Smith, 11/8)
The Wall Street Journal:
Biden’s Plan For Health Is Already A Failure
Most Democratic presidential candidates are supporting some version of Medicare for All, a radical proposal to put Washington in complete control of the health-care system. Joe Biden, however, promises to “protect and build on the Affordable Care Act,” the last Washington health-care experiment, which is better known as ObamaCare. Yet ObamaCare largely failed in its primary goal—to create a better market for individual health insurance. The ObamaCare exchanges are performing much worse than expected when they were launched in 2014. And this has nothing to do with the Trump administration. Rather, the law failed because of its perverse construction. (Brian Blase, 11/10)
The Hill:
DeJà Vu All Over Again: Health-Care Spending Back On The Rise
As we approach the 10-year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Democratic presidential candidates are sparring over what to do in its second decade. Should we build on the ACA? Or scrap it, relying instead on private markets or “Medicare for All”? As the debate heats up, it’s worth reflecting on what the ACA has accomplished so far — and what it hasn’t. The primary goal of the ACA was to expand health insurance coverage. In that sense, it has been wildly successful: despite recent declines in coverage, since 2010 nearly 20 million people became insured. A secondary goal was to lower spending growth. It’s right there in the name: make health care affordable. (Carrie Colla and Jonathan Skinner, 11/9)
The Hill:
The Employer-Health Insurance Connection An 'Accident Of History'
Everyone likes the idea of fair competition. That’s why everyone supported the 2007 investigation of an N.B.A. referee who knowingly influenced the outcome of professional basketball games on which he or his associates had placed bets. There was an outcry by the players, the owners, the league, and the fans — because the idea of picking winners and losers betrays the concept of competition based on effort and value.Unfortunately, governments have made a regular habit of doing just that — especially in health care. (David Balat, 11/8)
Boston Globe:
Massachusetts Senate Zeros In On Drug Costs
What matters on Main Street is that no one should have to cross our northern border to buy life-saving drugs. That no one should try to whip up a batch of insulin in the basement. That consumers know that the drugs they and their insurers are paying for will be assessed for both cost and value. (11/11)
