And from a Nobel Laureate no less:
When Obamacare was enacted, Republicans had some claims, almost a theory, about why it was a terrible idea. It would, they claimed, fail to improve coverage. It would be a massive “job-killer”. It would cost far more than predicted, and blow up the budget deficit.
In reality, the percentage of Americans under 65 without insurance fell from 18 percent in 2010, the year Obamacare was enacted, to 10 percent in 2016 (and less than 8 percent in Medicaid expansion states). Unemployment was 9.9 percent when the ACA was passed, 6.6 when it went into full effect, 4.8 by January 2017. Costs have come in well below expectations.
The comparison is not what happened coincident with Obamacare, it’s what actually was the effect of Obamacare. That is, what would have happened to unemployment with and without it, not observing that the economy was recovering from the worst recession of modern times coincident with the introduction of Obamacare.
We want to know the effect of the change in health care insurance, not the effects of QE, ultra-low interest rates, the business cycle and all the rest. The analysis being offered here is about as useful a noting that Greggs now has cheap breakfasts and look, renewables output is rising!