Yes, some people should be forced out of their insurance into Medicaid, if their insurance was a sham.
Medicaid, according to studies, is inadequate insurance. Or, if you will, a sham.
What studies? Everybody I know on Medicaid is bloody happy to have it, because the alternative is nothing, which is what you seem to be trying to move us back to.
No time to edit, will come back later.
That’s laughable.
I would like a bigger, better house. Therefore I am going to knock down my current house despite having no other place to live, because that somehow makes sense.
Who ran these studies?
http://www.americansurgical.info/abstracts/2010/18.cgi
The 2003 study showed that Medicaid patients were more likely to die in surgery than those with no insurance at all.
The more recent Oregon study should be known to all of you, and it showed no improved health outcomes for Medicaid patients.
That article says no such thing. It says we don’t know the numbers, which is exactly what I’ve said all along. You, on the other hand, keep pulling numbers out of whatever hole your “Romney Won” theory came from.
From your first link:
This is not particularly surprising considering things such as blood sugar, blood pressure, and cholesterol levels are affected often by factors besides medical coverage such as heredity and diet. OTOH, your article helpfully points out that Medicaid coverage prevents bankruptcy for people facing a catastrophic illness or injury.
And it is true that Medicaid coverage is often highly inadequate. That just gives an argument for expanding Medicaid to include more doctors to ensure faster care.
And again, the idea that the cancelled plans were “sham insurance” is yet more Democratic misinformation. The government decided what constituted acceptable insurance and nearly half of all plans did not qualify. Who knew that so many insured Americans didn’t have good insurance?
Heck, who knew that many UHC systems in the industrialized world were inadequate? Are there any foreigners here who have to pay a co-pay for preventive services? If so, you’re insurance is inadequate according to our government.
Strangely, lack of access to tertiary care centers is not considered inadequate by our government. You’d think the whole process was arbitrary and politically motivated.
What I don’t get is why so many Dopers just buy the talking points. If you showed the folks in power as much skepticism as you show fellow posters some ignorance might actually get fought. Instead, many of you spread it by mouthing those talking points.
http://oregonhealthstudy.org/for-participants/findings/
Oh, wait, it is adaher, the universe once again is conspiring against.
GIGO, the study says that people with Medicaid see more doctors and are less likely to have trouble paying medical bills. Neither of those indicators has anything to do with health.
Are Medicaid patients healthier than patients with no insurance at all? No.
Not that your arguments aren’t valid about the value of Medicaid, but let’s not call it health insurance, because it’s not. Call it financial insurance if you want.
If Medicaid is “health care” then quack doctors also give health care, since they improve patients’ piece of mind.
“Neither of those indicators has anything to do with health.”
:rolleyes:
Again:
Again, alternative health care practitioners achieve similar results. Again, how easily skepticism is thrown aside here.
And that would be a useful point, if we were looking at alternative health care. Once again, that is not what the Oregon study reports.
You’re missing the point. The Oregon study reports no difference in actual health. rather, it measures better “well being”, a result which alternative doctors have used for centuries to justify their unscientific approach.
Or, think of it like placebos. Medicaid has a placebo effect. Actually, less of a placebo effect than placebos.
Don’t think so, and let us remember that you mentioned the study, you are indeed cherry picking now as it does not confirm what you told us. Just like any good pseudo-scientist doctor would do. And the financial part of it has been one of the important items on why insurance is good to have.
But the main selling point is health. If health insurance doesn’t improve health outcomes, then there’s an easy way to avoid the financial risk: don’t purchase health care.
I know I don’t use health care much. Despite this being the 21st century, health care still kills an astonishing number of people. I get my checkups and I would go if I had a real problem amenable to a medical solution, but I shake my head at people who go to emergency rooms with the sniffles or sprains.
This is why catastrophic-only plans are quite adequate and quite legitimate.
:rolleyes:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321#Discussion
The key to me is that it was limited to two years, as the study makers report, it is not long enough to find differences but they do remark that the long term benefits are also important and bound to make a difference in the future.