Last edited Fri Sep 7, 2012, 04:42 PM - Edit history (2)

Clinton did an excellent job. He was forceful, persuasive, and 100% truthful.

Basically the Fact-Check.org report said they had nuthin'. But they can't go out with a report on a detailed 45-minute speech without reporting something. So I sympathize with their dilemma. However, I take exception to their first criticism.

They question the correlation between the launching of the Affordable Care Act and the dramatic reduction in the rate of increase in health care costs. They don't question the facts that Clinton presented. They agree Clinton was 100% accurate in the facts he presented. They only question how strong the correlation is. I think that is a fair question because the ACA has many provisions intended to flatten the cost curve and some of those, such as the public exchange, don't arrive until 2014. However, two years running, the rate has been under 5% where it previously had been over 15% for year after year. I believe much of that is a direct result of the public scrutiny placed on the insurance companies and the executives who were taking obscene compensation packages. Also the law has already forced companies to set premiums such that at least 80% of the premiums (85% in the case of group policies) goes into actual medical expenses. This is a major change and has already resulted in millions of dollars in rebates. So I'd say Clinton didn't stretch the point very much, if at all.

It has become sort of a de facto talking point that most of the ACA doesn't happen until the future. That is just flat wrong. We need to get better at talking about this. That 80/85% provision may be the very most important provision in the entire 2000 pages and people rarely even mention it -- AND IT IS IN EFFECT NOW AND SAVING PEOPLE MONEY NOW.

Well said