A New York Times editorial today states, “When Republican leaders talk of reducing medical costs they really mean reducing insurance premiums for some people, primarily by letting the young and healthy buy insurance in states that allow the sale of skimpy policies. That won’t help older and less healthy people and would probably drive up their premiums as they flock to states whose regulations guarantee them coverage.”

One could rewrite the paragraph to show the problems with ObamaCare itself: “When President Obama talks of reducing medical costs he really means reducing insurance premiums for some people, primarily by letting the old and sick buy insurance with heavy subsidies regardless of their medical need. That won’t help younger and healthier people and would probably drive up their premiums as they abandon insurance and pay the penalty rather than premiums for overly expensive coverage. That in turn would probably drive up premiums for older and less healthy people as they remain the only ones for whom insurance makes sense.”

Another way to rewrite the paragraph: “When Democrat leaders say the law reduces medical costs they really mean reducing medical care for some people, primarily by letting an unaccountable board in Washington decide what Medicare will pay for. That also won’t help older or less wealthy people and would drive out doctors from the federal program as they flock to the people who will still be able to afford their services.

The law’s purported cost savings come from Medicare cuts that have never been enacted in the past and that the Congressional Budget Office doubts will be enacted in the future. What we offer instead, though it’s not clear Republicans will take up our ideas, are proven savings from patients making their own decisions on care and having more choices among care providers. Research at Dartmouth and elsewhere all verify the effectiveness of this approach to saving without effecting the health of individuals.