I suspect that the editors of the Washington Post don’t appreciate the irony of the caption on their editorial, “Obamacare deserves some credit”. It will need it since that’s how it will be paid for: on credit.
Returning to the meat of the editorial there is no doubt that the PPACA is responsible for the reduction in the number of people without healthcare insurance:
The percentage of Americans without insurance dropped by 5.3 points in the last year, the Urban Institute found this month , because of the ACA’s Medicaid expansion and health-care exchanges. The mellowing of health-care cost inflation, on the other hand, seems to have predated the ACA. Though some cost-containment measures might begin to bite in coming years, the law was more a coverage expansion policy than a cost-control policy.
As to whether it’s also a contributing factor to improvements in hospital care or the slower rate of increase of healthcare costs, it’s just too early to tell. We don’t have nearly enough data to draw those conclusions.
The great challenge in the years to come will be to determine whether more people with insurance translates into more and better care or whether more and better care translates into better health. That’s what the Oregon study called into question: the relationship between insurance and health. That’s the whole point, isn’t it?
The problem with the PPACA health care reform legislation was that it’s solutions were a function of political gamesmanship, rather than a cooperative effort between two parties truly concerned about hammering out the best possible, workable plan to deliver the best possible health care to most people.