Rejecting the Medicaid expansion could kill nearly 6,000 people each year
16 replies, posted
[QUOTE]On Monday, though, a beautiful study was published in [URL="http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1867050"][I]Annals of Internal Medicine[/I][/URL] that provides some of the best data we have connecting health coverage to saved lives. [URL="http://www.healthinsurance.org/blog/2014/05/05/could-obamacare-save-24000-lives-a-year/"]It’s changed my thinking, too[/URL].
I’m more confident than I was last week that the ACA will save many thousands of lives every year.
Ironically, [B]the study examined the impact of the bipartisan insurance expansion enacted in Massachusetts in 2006—a.k.a. “RomneyCare,” which provided the basic model for the ACA.[/B] Three of the best researchers in the business—Benjamin Sommers, Sharon Long and Katherine Baicker examined a decade’s worth of mortality data in Massachusetts counties, comparing trends to those found in carefully chosen comparison counties in other states. This wasn’t a randomized trial, but it was the next best thing, tracking the experiences of hundreds of thousands of people for years before and after the enactment of Massachusetts’ reforms.
Here’s their bottom-line result: [B] Insurance coverage reduced mortality rates by about 30 percent. For every 830 people newly insured, Massachusetts prevented one death per year.[/B]
Read more: [URL]http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/the-deadliest-republican-policy-yet-106453.html#ixzz327TK3Hcg[/URL]
[/QUOTE]
Study link: [url]http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1867050[/url]
It should be noted that virtually every governor who has refused expanding medicaid is Republican.
Not that I'm happy with even one person killed, but 6,000 is a surprisingly tiny number given the population of the US.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;44845551]Study link: [url]http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1867050[/url]
It should be noted that virtually every governor who has refused expanding medicaid is Republican.[/QUOTE]
It should be noted that virtually every governor who refused to expand medicaid never wanted this shitty system and didn't want to send their states farther into debt to pay for it.
If the federal government wanted every state to expand medicaid, they should pay for the expansion 100% indefinitely and not just for the first few years.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;44845565]Not that I'm happy with even one person killed, but 6,000 is a surprisingly tiny number given the population of the US.[/QUOTE]
The article near the end actually states that it could be up to 24,000 if you include every uninsured American. It's 6000 a year at least and these are deaths caused by political games.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44845911]It should be noted that virtually every governor who refused to expand medicaid never wanted this shitty system and didn't want to send their states farther into debt to pay for it.
If the federal government wanted every state to expand medicaid, they should pay for the expansion 100% indefinitely and not just for the first few years.[/QUOTE]
Actually some states will end up saving money because the federal investments and medicaid expansion itself would cut the costs for out of state hospital visits and emergency treatment.
For those that don't save money, the costs are far below what most Republican states offer businesses. As an example, Kentucky will spend 1.7 billion dollars attracting outside businesses to their state. The cost to expand medicare for them when the federal government stops paying 100%? 301 million dollars. It's really sad to see people so vehemently defend politicians who obviously don't care about their citizens. It worked in Massachusetts, it can work in other states.
We shouldn't be losing any lives to political crap.
[QUOTE]The Massachusetts estimates imply that the ACA will prevent something in the neighborhood of 24,096 deaths every year (simply: 20 million divided by 830). That’s more than twice the number of Americans killed in gun homicides.[/QUOTE]
Hello. I am a pro-life Republican.
Can't we just have universal healthcare already?
People can argue against it all they want, but their argument still boils down to "poor people aren't worth tax money".
Pick a year, ban everyone who is born after that year from ever being allowed to legally obtain cigarettes, and then enact universal healthcare.
You cut out smoking first simply because it costs so much money to care for people whose lives can likely be prolonged significantly by simply not smoking. According to the CDC, roughly 20% of adult deaths are related to tobacco.
[url]http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/[/url]
It costs us nearly 300 billion dollars ALREADY.
[url]http://www.cdc.gov/Tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm[/url]
For everyone who fears "socialized" medicine, keep this in mind: Socialized medicine is more capitalist than our current system.
A market needs a few things to function in capitalism. First, you need an informed population. If a product is bad or manufactured using processes you don't agree with, you need to be able to know PRIOR to purchase. Ideally you need the population to be perfectly informed, but that is largely impossible. In practice the effectiveness of this particular leg is questionable, but largely irrelevant to the point at hand.
The other major component is that you need to be able to, upon learning something about the product that you don't like (Too expensive, A product of conflict, Made using baby seal blood and lion cub tears, etc etc) you need to be able to say [B]no.[/B] You need the option to not purchase that product. This works for most things. Televisions, for instance, are not something that you need and you can easily decide the price is too high. You even have the option of multiple brands or even retailers to find the best deal. This applies even to things like food, a product you need to survive, because you have such a huge variety to choose from and can even elect to grow your own.
The above, however, doesn't apply to healthcare. You can't say no in many cases. In some cases you might not even have the CAPABILITY to say no. You can't turn down services. Your options for drug treatments are often impossibly expensive, or if you are lucky and a generic exists, barely affordable. Health care is astronomically expensive, and health insurance isn't exactly a walk in the park either and is simply unobtainable for much of the country.
But you know who can say no? EVERYONE. Socialized medicine isn't necessarily turning over control of your entire medical industry to the government (though it can), it is turning over the BARGAINING to your government. By having a single entity control the buying power for an entire country (a massive figure for a nation the size of the US) you effectively regain the upper hand in negotiations and price settings. If the entire US market said "no fuck you your artificial hearts are too expensive and not reliable", someone is going to make a cheaper and more reliable artificial heart. Why? Because that is a shitload of money if they can win that contract. It can even get more complicated when negotiating with things like drug companies who may hold perfectly valid drug patents. You might have to pay their prices for THAT product, but that doesn't mean you have to do any business with them outside of that. If their new cancer treatment drug tanks the rest of their entire portfolio, then they aren't going to be too happy about that. Meanwhile with government assurances, they can likely set the price lower anyhow, because they have market control and can be assured that they will make their money back on their research long before their patent expires.
There is just no reason to keep dicking around with all this goddamn compromise. The Republicans are going to scream bloody murder the entire way, may as well just tear off the bandage and get all the screaming out of the way. If we could just convince them that this IS capitalism, maybe we can get just enough on our side to do it.
Is the right to live guaranteed to U.S. Citizens, nay, human beings?
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty,_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness]The Declaration of Independence says so.[/url]
Shouldn't that right extend to whether a [b]human being[/b], as said in that declaration, receives medical help if it is available?
What gives someone else the ability to judge the value of a person's life, to decline them medical health if that medical health can be provided?
Maybe i'm wrong and we can't believe in a document that's 200 years old political wise and has only men mentioned in it, but people still believe in The Bible because it provides morals that people live by to keep stability.
Why not believe the document that FOUNDED the IDEA of an independent state from Britain, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
[QUOTE=ClarkWasHere;44847238]Is the right to live guaranteed to U.S. Citizens, nay, human beings?
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty,_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness"]The Declaration of Independence says so.[/URL]
Shouldn't that right extend to whether a [B]human being[/B], as said in that declaration, receives medical help if it is available?
What gives someone else the ability to judge the value of a person's life, to decline them medical health if that medical health can be provided?
Maybe i'm wrong and we can't believe in a document that's 200 years old political wise and has only men mentioned in it, but people still believe in The Bible because it provides morals that people live by to keep stability.
Why not believe the document that FOUNDED the IDEA of an independent state from Britain, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?[/QUOTE]
Some politicians are happy to pick and choose what passages from the deceleration of independence suits their motives (and will get them votes) and are willing to ignore the ones that don't suit their ideology. It's happening over the pond as well. You should hear what our local mp's are spouting in Manchester, all wind and no real conviction. But hey, it gets them votes!
[QUOTE=GunFox;44847148]Can't we just have universal healthcare already? [/QUOTE]
but universal healthcare is [B]communism[/B]
[IMG]http://anenglishwomaninsalem.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/communism.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;44847597]but universal healthcare is [B]communism[/B]
[IMG]http://anenglishwomaninsalem.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/communism.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Man, communism looks like a good time. Flag burning, some crazy dancing, some fucker in the back wearing a hoodie, and a fist fight? That sounds like every college party ever.
[QUOTE=ClarkWasHere;44847238]Is the right to live guaranteed to U.S. Citizens, nay, human beings?
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty,_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness"]The Declaration of Independence says so.[/URL]
Shouldn't that right extend to whether a [B]human being[/B], as said in that declaration, receives medical help if it is available?
What gives someone else the ability to judge the value of a person's life, to decline them medical health if that medical health can be provided?
Maybe i'm wrong and we can't believe in a document that's 200 years old political wise and has only men mentioned in it, but people still believe in The Bible because it provides morals that people live by to keep stability.
Why not believe the document that FOUNDED the IDEA of an independent state from Britain, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?[/QUOTE]
The right to life means that no one can take your life away from you. It does not mean that you have the right to the longest possible life that medicine can provide.
This is the common interpretation, not just my opinion. If it meant what you're trying to say that it means, then the government would be obligated to provide literally any and all treatment for any life threatening illness, no matter what, no questions asked. For example, this would include the enormously expensive end of line cancer treatments that simply extend life a few years, but have no chance of actually curing you.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;44846894]
Actually some states will end up saving money because the federal investments and medicaid expansion itself would cut the costs for out of state hospital visits and emergency treatment.
For those that don't save money, the costs are far below what most Republican states offer businesses. As an example, Kentucky will spend 1.7 billion dollars attracting outside businesses to their state. The cost to expand medicare for them when the federal government stops paying 100%? 301 million dollars. It's really sad to see people so vehemently defend politicians who obviously don't care about their citizens. It worked in Massachusetts, it can work in other states.[/QUOTE]
You're right, it did work in Mass. But not every state is like Massachusetts. That 301 million in Kentucky is still 301 million dollars from their budget that they may not have. And with new regulations putting a chokehold on the coal industry, many people in Kentucky are going to be unemployed, so tax revenue is going to drop.
This was a crappy system plain and simple. There are much better ways to go about this. The ACA isn't one of them....
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44845911]It should be noted that virtually every governor who refused to expand medicaid never wanted this shitty system and didn't want to send their states farther into debt to pay for it.
If the federal government wanted every state to expand medicaid, they should pay for the expansion 100% indefinitely and not just for the first few years.[/QUOTE]
The state governments that receive the most benefits due to medicaid and other social programs are also the ones that pay the least into it. It's partially because of poor education systems as well as the fact income is lower on those areas because they're so poor.
its ok if we kill our citizens but if brown people do it stop the presses we're goin to war!
edit: or maybe its that they killed the rich people not the poor people
[QUOTE=ClarkWasHere;44847238]Is the right to live guaranteed to U.S. Citizens, nay, human beings?
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty,_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness]The Declaration of Independence says so.[/url]
Shouldn't that right extend to whether a [b]human being[/b], as said in that declaration, receives medical help if it is available?
What gives someone else the ability to judge the value of a person's life, to decline them medical health if that medical health can be provided?
Maybe i'm wrong and we can't believe in a document that's 200 years old political wise and has only men mentioned in it, but people still believe in The Bible because it provides morals that people live by to keep stability.
Why not believe the document that FOUNDED the IDEA of an independent state from Britain, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?[/QUOTE]
The Declaration of Independence has no legal standing. It's a dear John letter to King Henry.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44848503]You're right, it did work in Mass. But not every state is like Massachusetts.[/QUOTE]
You are gonna have to try a little harder than "Not every state is Massachusetts". Like explain why other states can't copy it's healthcare plan that saved thosuands of lives.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44848503]That 301 million in Kentucky is still 301 million dollars from their budget that they may not have. And with new regulations putting a chokehold on the coal industry, many people in Kentucky are going to be unemployed, so tax revenue is going to drop.[/QUOTE]
Did you not read my post? If Kentucky spends a fraction (less than a fifth) of what they spend on propping up private businesses they could cover every poor citizen in their state.
It's not a problem of not having the money, all of these state governments have it. They would just rather spend it on things that aren't saving peoples lives
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44848503]This was a crappy system plain and simple. There are much better ways to go about this. The ACA isn't one of them....[/QUOTE]
You keep saying this but the thread is about Medicaid, widely regarded as the second most successful and popular benefits program after Social Security, a program that has seen no real opposition for the decades it's been in effect.
Leave your partisan politics at the door please this is about saving lives.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.