One of the Democratic Party frustrations with conservatives during the ACA debates was witnessing them tolerate or even support Romney’s Massachusetts plan, but oppose Obamacare. That I can understand. One of the conservative frustrations with ACA was the fear that it would just be the first step in a never-ending, upward-ratcheting series of efforts to spend ever more on health insurance coverage, which has positive but only marginal implications for health itself. After all, where exactly do the moral arguments for spending more on health insurance coverage stop?
Is there a politically feasible version of the Finkelstein and Einav plan that can spend less or the same? Is there a politically feasible version of the plan period? How much trust will there be in the promise that if I give up my private health insurance coverage, it will be replaced by something better? How much trust should there be?
But again, the authors here have a very different perspective on the sector and how to do health care policy.