Unless you mean that they both include that cut to overhead/profit that you derided when Obama put it in too, then you’re not even being coherent anymore.
What makes you think that’s not going to happen?
That would be a good compromise. End Medicare, put everyone on ACA.
A “compromise” between what and what? Between supplying universal health care and telling the Democrats to go fuck themselves?
A compromise, since you haven’t gotten that far in school yet obviously, is a solution that addresses the needs of conflicting legitimate interests, neither fully, but in a way that permits progress. So what is the legitimate interest you people have in preventing UHC from being implemented?
You really don’t know squat about ACA, do you? That clueless statement is like saying, "Take eveyone off employer health insurance and put them on ACA. Medicare satisfies the requirements of ACA just as employer health insurance; there is no reason to get rid of one or the other.
There was no reason to get rid of a lot of things the ACA does. Many people were satisfied with high deductible insurance.
These studies make no sense to me. You can’t control for everything except that one group gets Medicaid and another group doesn’t. If you don’t get Medicaid it’s (for the most part) because you’re not poor enough and/or not sick enough.
And as someone who spends his days mostly taking care of the uninsured, it’s no surprise to me that they’re a healthier population overall than those who get Medicaid. They’re mostly either employed or employable and in relatively stable situations.
That’s what I figured. But it still highlights that health insurance, while important, is rather low on the list of factors contributing to health and well being. Despite it being the norm around the Western world, UHC has never been strictly necessary.
But my main point was the contention that states would spend MORE by not expanding Medicaid. What that tells me is that if you go to an emergency room without insurance or Medicaid, you get X amount of treatment. If you have Medicaid, you get less than X.
Besides being a very ignorant thing to say, it is IMHO a very inhumane thing to insist upon.
http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/health-reform/dangers-of-defeat.pdf
(PDF file)
The attempt is made, but what I have seen done to parents and a relative on medicare is that in an emergency they have less trouble to get good or adequate care, the general point that is denied here is that we all have to pay for the lack of care and lack of insurance that happens when poor people go to the emergency room.
We pay for it either way. We just have more restrictions on their care if they are on Medicaid than if they just get billed.
We pay a great deal more when they default on emergency room bills, and the rest of use pay for it in higher health care costs. We pay less when the poor have access to regular health care visits at a doctor’s office instead of the ER.
adaher, your attempt at avoiding your ignorance and the use of inhuman points is duly noted.
No, you get the same amount of treatment either way while you’re in the ER, and usually while you’re in the hospital. The difference comes once you leave the hospital.
For instance, I frequently have uninsured patients in the hospital that I have to keep for several extra days, costing thousands of dollars, because they can’t afford outpatient medicines or outpatient follow-up labs. Or I do let them go, and they can’t afford the follow-up, so they end up back in the hospital three days later with the same thing.
The uninsured are taken care of via a ridiculously inefficient system that includes emergency rooms, inpatient care, charity and university clinics, sliding scales at various federally funded clinics, and capricious charitable programs. It all varies from place to place and from day to day, so follow-up is difficult and often nonexistent. And it all comes out of public money ultimately.
Rick Perry still isn’t behind Obamacare but he’ll take some of the money anyway to support healthcare for the elderly and disabled. No reason to leave the money on the table, I guess.
I’ve been wondering when the Hell my state was going to get off its ass and start advertising its marketplace. Well, here you go:
Exchange Unveils TV Ad Campaign
*
According to exchange estimates, about $45 million will be spent on the media campaign between September and March, then another $35 million for the following six months. An estimated 59% of that first wave of money will be spent on television ads, officials said. *
I can’t say that I understand the reasoning behind waiting until October to start the PR marketing blast, but hopefully everything pans out alright.
Yeah, they sure are making everything a last minute thing, not doing anything till they absolutely have to. I think most of this is due to the obstructionist element bent on destroying the plan to protect all the industries and contractors that have made their ill-gotten living off of the existing corrupt system.
I just wished this whole game wasn’t based on those stinking PPO type contracts, which are the same contracts that facilitated the creation the current healthcare fiasco. PPOs are heavily lobbied and positively corrupted. All the contractors involved love them because all the pricing and billing scams are in place and the PPACA just promises to keep feeding that monster. HMOs aren’t as bad in that the contracts aren’t nearly as lucrative for the contractors that want to bleed the system and every patient involved. If there is a single most important obstructionist move to point to in all this it is the maneuvering that happened in the background that cemented the continuation of the PPO model.
God save us all, because quality healthcare isn’t there for any but the rich, and it will be forever thus.
The Kaiser Family Foundation just released an early look (PDF) at ACA premiums in 18 cities around the country. It shows that early CBO estimates were too high in many cases.
But the key question is, is it higher than what people already pay?
Nonsense. Apples and Oranges in most cases. In my case (HDHP and HSA) my premiums go up, coverage goes up, max out of pocket goes down.
Better to ask if it allows purchase of coverage for more people with fewer restrictions.
And the answer is, of course that it’ll be higher for some people (and they won’t switch) and lower for some people (and they might switch) and the only option for some other people. You keep trying to reduce complex problems to heads or tails answers and the world don’t work that way unless you’re flipping a coin.