You do know there are researchers in this country who make a point to learn these things, right? Again, you being ignorant does not mean other people choose to do the same. Here are some starting points if you care to actually educate yourself instead of just repeating random worthless talking points. https://www.census.gov/topics/health/health-insurance.html
me: that metric is meaningless. you: that metric is not meaningless, because look at these different metrics that I'm linking you are proving my point. Again, what you and others are assuming is that because a person has insurance now and didn't before, they must be saving money or getting better healthcare than before. The metric provides no evidence this is true.
Good to know that there are some folks out there who don't take the position that "I've got mine, too bad for you" Of course in many cases it is just ignorance reinforced by the type of media they consume. This allows them to see themselves as Christians, while ignoring that tens of millions have no access to health care in the richest country in the world.
That wasn't the metric you were talking about. Quit running away. You said how do you know that it's not rich people choosing not to have insurance and then being forced to buy it. Your metric was about the income of people with and without insurance. Because you got shown up, isn't an excuse to pretend you were talking about something else. It's very dishonest of you. Also, nobody is forced to buy insurance.
Some of these folks think Jesus is only concerned about the gospel of wealth and for the just and with abortion and the evils of homosexuality metrics, smetrics. lol Only a moron would think that the average person will get (or afford-- just think about that) just as good of healthcare without insurance as with insurance. Only a moron wouldn't realize that if you have any half way serious healthcare problem that you save more by having insurance than paying out of your pocket. Sometimes I think with tallnover we may just be dealing with a healthy teen ager who just finished Atlas Shrugged so he views healthcare only from the point of view of a billionaire.
Just to summarize and not get lost in the pr and the "metrics" talk lol, after 8 years of planning the best the GOP can come up with is a plan to throw 24 million American citizens off of health insurance that will save some of the 1% money..
it depends. Since almost all the newly covered are done through Medicaid expansion....... https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-miracle-medicaid-expansion See how the above tries to measure the quality of healthcare. A meaningful measure unlike the stupid **** the liberals keep peddling.
Is it your contention the quality of care provided by Medicaid has gotten better in the past 3 years? how so and what changes have led to what you are claiming? Just to be clear I am not making any arguments regarding who these newly covered people are or if they are getting better/worse healthcare than before. I simply argued looking at how many people have insurance is ridiculously stupid and meaningless.
Three years is a significant... and I suspect both you and the right wing op-ed writer believe so as well, else a more current analysis would have been used. And ignoring the people that now have insurance coverage that would not have insurance without ACA is ridiculously stupid and meaningless, to use your own wording.
It shouldn't be a surprise that health providers prefer larger payments from private insurers vs lower payments from government insurance (remember why they fought so hard against the public option). If only lower payments are the only option, guess what - lower price and wider access. Limited study based on many limitations, but still -- below is link to the actual study. Physical-health outcome is limited to 3 measurements. The benefits of substantial improvements in mental health was not mentioned by Cato's article. Also, now that we have a few years of actual expansion, they can better evaluate the effects. The Oregon Experiment — Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes Despite these limitations, our study provides evidence of the effects of expanding Medicaid to low-income adults on the basis of a randomized design, which is rarely available in the evaluation of social insurance programs. We found that insurance led to increased access to and utilization of health care, substantial improvements in mental health, and reductions in financial strain, but we did not observe reductions in measured blood-pressure, cholesterol, or glycated hemoglobin levels.
For example, here is a study from 2017 from the Kaiser Family Foundation: The Effects of Medicaid Expansion under the ACA: Updated Findings from a Literature Review http://kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief...ca-updated-findings-from-a-literature-review/ Key findings:
lolz did you even read what you posted? its a review of studies from 2014-2017 (3 years back OMG!!!!!). clearly Kaiser disagrees with your assertion that 'Three years is a significant'.
Apparently I can both read and understand better than you... from the oldest of 2014 (the date you posted) to 2017. All of which more recent the op-ed you posted.
Tallnover opposes even medicaid expansion for the poor who even with the subsidies cannot afford Obamacare. He prefers that they have no insurance at all while pretending that he is concerned with the quality of Medicaid. To be fair to tallanvor there is always the possibility he is not that heartless and that like many he just does not understand the slick talking points designed to confuse little guys that he repeats from a libertarian website funding by the Kochs and other billionaires.
Don't know why he is on the message board. I don't think he is a rockets fan. I don't know if he is from Houston. Just Parrots conservative talking points. He is probably a paid troll.
