Wednesday, November 09, 2016


One thing which would be interesting to explore is precisely why all of the worst* parts of Obamacare - the mandate and the exchanges/insufficient subsidies (politically and substantively) - were the parts that got all of the attention. I don't mean attention from critics, I mean attention from its "wonky" supporters who wrote endless treatises about how cool this Rube Goldberg machine was and how all of the lego pieces were going to fit together just right. When news - legitimately overstated and exaggerated - of premium increases hit, those same wonks retreated to "but only 3% are on the exchanges!" even though the exchanges were weirdly sold - again, by its proponents! - as the central features of Obamacare.

The medicaid expansion, nixing of pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps, certain types of mandated coverage, etc.. were all the really *good* features of Obamacare. Why don't most people know about them?

*Worst politically and/or substantively. I get the logic of the mandate, but it's shit if it isn't affordable, simple, and stable.