RyanCare Vs. ObamaCare
Paul Krugman's critiques of RyanCare have delivered questions as to how RyanCare differes from ObamaCare with regard to how Americans will pay for health care under ObamaCare. Here is Krugman's response:
[H]ow does the Ryan plan differ from the Affordable Care Act? After all, in both plans people are supposed to buy coverage from private insurers, with a subsidy from the government.
Well, the answer is that the ACA is specifically designed to ensure that insurance is affordable, whereas Ryancare just hands out vouchers and washes its hands. Specifically, the ACA subsidy system (pdf) sets a maximum percentage of income that families are expected to pay for insurance, on a sliding scale that rises with income. To the extent that the actual cost of a minimum acceptable policy exceeds that percentage of income, subsidies make up the difference.
This is an inadequate answer imo. Indeed, it provides an obvious retort - what if RyanCare incorporated provisions to "ensure that insurance was affordable[?}" Would it be okay then? No it would not. Because Medicare is superior to ACA. Because single payer public insurance is superior to ACA. Krugman implicitly says so here. Moreover, Krugman is all too sanguine about the efficacy of ACA's ability to make sure "insurance is affordable." A perusal of the article Krugman links to, written by Jon Gruber, demonstrates this:
|< A Test Case For Regulatory Health Reform: Florida Privatizes Medicaid | The Many Deaths of Ilyas Kashmiri >|