Originally Posted by Piobaire
As most anyone that has been following this policy debate knows part of the Obamacare plan is to greatly expand the state run Medicaid programs with federal dollars thus giving the poor "affordable" healthcare. Well, there's a problem with that. All data seems to show aggregate health outcomes for folks in Medicaid are equal to or worse
than being uninsured. Numbers vary about how many more people will end up on Medicaid roles thanks to Obamacare but I have yet to find an estimate of lower than 10 million people. To put that number in perspective that's about 3% of the entire US population. Add that to the approximately 60 million people already on the program and we have about 23% of the entire US population on Medicaid, or put another way, 23% of the US population has billions in tax dollars buying their healthcare, healthcare that has been repeatedly demonstrated to give aggregate results equal to or worse than being uninsured.
Big win for Obama!
Pio, how can this be?
Granted, Medicaid is second rate poorly administered health care ( rife with fraud too ).
But how can it be worse than no access to health care at all?
Are your cited studies comparing Medicaid recipients to all uninsured, which would include those that are not near or even close to the poverty line but choose not to purchase insurance ( like many healthy young self employed people ).
Put simply, are you comparing broke dicks ( of the Medicaid variety ) to broke dicks of the overall variety ( like homeless people who do not have Medicaid for whatever reason ).
Or are you comparing Medicaid recipients to all uninsured ( which includes dirt poor people unable to afford anything all the way up to relatively affluent people who choose not to have insurance, but have access to medical care ).?