�鶹Ů��

The uncertain future of Obamacare isn’t just wreaking havoc for insurers, hospitals and other companies in the health-care ecosystem. It’s paralyzing the lives of millions of regular Americans, too. (Catherine Rampbell, 3/20)

President Trump has mostly stayed on the sidelines of the messy policy debates regarding health care reform. But amid the war on Capitol Hill among Republican factions, he could seize the opportunity to provide leadership consistent with his campaign message to disrupt existing health policy. Instead of trying to satisfy the free-market wing of his party, Mr. Trump could push for a solution that delivers on his populist promises by proposing universal catastrophic coverage, ending the specter of medical bankruptcy for many Americans. (Benjamin Domenech, 3/21)

If you watch the Sunday shows you’ll quickly see the GOP’s circular reasoning: To drive down insurance premium costs you have to remove the insurance mandates, but that’s not in the bill. It comes later, they say, but their fellow Republicans candidly acknowledge that later means “never.” (Jennifer Rubin, 3/20)

The biggest gamble in the House health-care bill is whether it includes enough reform to arrest the current death spiral in the individual insurance market. No one knows for sure, but critics are overlooking important provisions that will help people who are now exposed to ObamaCare’s rapidly rising premiums. (3/20)

Following an exceedingly unfavorable report from the Congressional Budget Office, prospects of the House Obamacare repeal-and-replace bill becoming law in its original form have become bleak. In its wake comes talk of significant changes to the bill, and even the renewal of an old strategy: letting the Affordable Care Act implode on its own accord, then picking up the pieces anew. There’s only one problem. The predicted “death spiral” hasn’t happened yet, and there’s a reason it won’t. (Stan Veuger and Benedic Ippolito, 3/21)

“Obamacare is not going to last,” House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said Sunday when challenged to explain how he could support a replacement plan that independent experts project would result in millions of people losing health coverage. “There’s no way Obamacare could stick another two or three years, let alone 10 years.” This is the last rhetorical refuge for defenders of a shoddy GOP replacement plan: Practically any system would be better than the “collapsing” status quo. (3/20)

Last week the Congressional Budget Office made front-page headlines when it reported that the House proposal to replace Obamacare would throw millions of people off the insurance rolls. Apparently the future of the country’s health-care entitlement system is of profound importance. ... But the 10-year forecast is just as important, and adds crucial context to the debate over health care. For instance, it shows that the national debt is set to explode, growing from $20 trillion to $30 trillion by 2027. (3/20)

For individual marketplace insurance, the AHCA removes the requirement to cover specified percentages of the expected medical costs. This means that while plans are required to include the full set of benefits, they are free to raise the cost sharing for particular benefits — like mental health services or maternity and newborn care — to potentially prohibitive levels. (Richard G. Frank and Sherry A. Glied, 3/20)

It’s not often that a Donald Trump rally is the bottom story in the state he’s visiting. But when the state is Kentucky and it’s March Madness and the University of Kentucky Wildcats have just advanced to the NCAA’s Sweet 16 in college basketball, it’s understandable that local attentions are focused on hoops not politics. (William McGurn, 3/20)

Political opportunism and irrational ideology continue to dominate reason in our latest phase of the struggle over health care. Assuming there is an American future, the people living in it will look back in wonderment that in 2017 a few hundred adult, fairly well-informed, decently educated men and women had such difficulty solving a fundamental problem of governance and math. Why, they will ask, did so many people of that era not understand that every one of them had a financial – let alone moral and humanitarian – stake in everyone else’s physical well-being? (Davis Merritt, 3/21)