Why Attacks on Obamacare are Dwindling

Paul Krugman comments on the “dwindling” Obamacare attack ads.

“The reason is fairly obvious, although it’s not considered nice to state it bluntly: the attack on Obamacare depended almost entirely on lies, and those lies are becoming unsustainable now that the law is actually working. No, there aren’t any death panels; no, huge numbers of Americans aren’t losing coverage or finding their health costs soaring; no, jobs aren’t being killed in vast numbers.”

“Many of us argued all along that the right’s chance to kill reform would vanish once the program was actually in place; the horror stories only worked as long as the truth wasn’t visible. And that’s what seems to be happening.”


FavoriteLoadingSave to Favorites
  • EricFromTheHill

    I’m glad to see Krugman and others on the left embracing ACA more as time goes on, although if I remember correctly, Krugman has always been clear in his correct belief that it would be a vast improvement over the status quo.

    Progressives should also embrace the ACA because it makes the implementation of truly universal coverage possible in the next decade or two. Now that the success of the law’s policies are obvious to all but those who routinely trade in dishonesty and fear tactics, it’s time to start talking about how- not “whether”- to pass and initiate a public option to replace the individual mandate. The framework of marketplaces, subsidies and the Medicaid expansion provide an ideal foundation.

    • Recently an NPR story explained how Obamacare was fostering competition in Pittsburgh, and even though this was tough as an insurer and hospital parted ways, a side note mentioned that insurance companies are scrambling to show they provide value to the system and not mere brokers for government benefits, now that community rating and medical loss ration and things like that remove much of what they used to do.

      This is what the left should watch carefully as Obamacare continues to play out: leveraging regulated market capitalism to shift the center of social insurance away from these companies without a massive disruption and displacement.

  • Valley Forge

    For an economist Krugman seems ignorant of the broken window theory (ie, opportunity cost of imposing Obamacare). That aside, his blinders ignore the actual damage that has and is being inflicted. Millions did lose their insurance. Saying that it wasn’t a problem because most found a way to get some kind of replacement is like claiming poverty is not a problem because most of the poor will eventually pull themselves above the poverty line.

    He is also pointedly oblivious to the fact that the law has failed to achieve any of the promises made by Obama and Democrats – premiums would fall by $2500 per family, people could keep their plans and their doctors, there would be no impact on the deficit. Even on coverage CBO now projects there will be as many citizens uninsured in 2024 as there were in 2009 – 30 million.

    Krugman is wrong in any case – the attacks on Obamacare will intensify again as open enrollment approaches and premium increases are announced. Krugman has the value of being nearly always wrong so you at least know what possibilities to eliminate.

    • Talking points fail

    • adastraperapathy

      Millions lost their insurance–just like millions lose their insurance every year to non-renewal.

      Where is the source for your accusation that Democrats claims “premiums would fall by $2500 per family?”

      As far as the deficit goes–yes, Obamacare is paying for itself through the provisions of the law meant to raise revenue and cut waste in Medicare Advantage and other programs.

      If the CBO does project there will be 30 million uninsured people in 2024 as there were in 2009 (again, you don’t provide a link to a source), then it probably has something to do with population growth.

    • UpperLeftCoast

      “there will be as many citizens uninsured in 2024 as there were in 2009 – 30 million.”

      Very cute, comparing 2009 to projected 2024 figures. You might catch some sloppy readers or shallow thinkers with that one. But why stop with this dishonest comparison? How about “Even at 1/2% inflation in medical costs in 100 years costs will be higher.”

  • Liblies247

    A new class of welfare grabbers, worse and more expensive insurance for tens of millions of others. If it’s such a great idea, implement as written right now. No more delays until after the next election, no more waivers, no more arbitrary changes. Disagree with a liberal and you’re a fear monger? Shameful.

  • UpperLeftCoast

    The chief value of ObamaCare is that it breaks the stranglehold of the insurance companies and their congressional sycophants on the health care system and – finally – starts us on the path to universal health care, just like every other developed country in the world. It’s time the US caught up and lifted itself out of 3rd world status as far as health care goes.

Read previous post:
Two Very Different Americas Reflected in Google Searches

David Leonhardt: "In the hardest places to live in the United States, people spend a lot of time thinking about...