rumitoid

This is what you can expect from the fiscal responsibility party: inhumanity to their constituents to save a dime. But what is really strange is that it wasn't about saving a dime so some citizen would be denied proper life-saving care; they gave up free federal money to let people suffer and die needlessly for their partisan h**e. There is clear evidence of this d********g chapter in the GOP.

On June 28, 2012, the day that the Supreme Court upheld most of the Affordable Care Act, the sighs of relief were so loud that they drowned out one part of the Court's decision that has come to haunt the lives of millions of poor people around the country, and that also has come to represent the fanatical refusal of Republican politicians, specifically Republican governors, to associate themselves with anything that had anything to do with President Barack Obama.

In his opinion upholding the ACA, Roberts allowed individual governors to refuse to accept the Medicaid expansion in their states. In other words, just because it came from an Democratic president—and because it came from that Democratic president—these governors violated one of the fundamental tenets of state government that date back to the dawn of human greed: they refused FREE MONEY!

Now, in a paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, four scholars have illustrated the human price of this nonfeasance by Republican governors. According to the paper, somewhere around 15,000 Americans died between the years 2014 and 2017 as a result of states that turned down the FREE MONEY! available to them from the federal government through the provisions of the ACA.

Our analysis shows that the ACA Medicaid expansions reduced mortality among this targeted group. Prior to the expansions, individuals in our sample residing in expansion and non-expansion states had very similar trends in both Medicaid coverage and mortality. At the time of the expansion, the trajectories of these two groups diverged significantly, with expansion state residents seeing increases in Medicaid coverage and decreases in the probability of being uninsured, and decreases in annual mortality rates.

In the first year following the coverage expansion, the probability of mortality declined by about 0.09 percentage points, or 6.4 percent relative to the sample mean. The estimated impact of the expansions increases over time, suggesting that prolonged exposure to Medicaid results in increasing health improvements...

Our analysis provides new evidence that Medicaid coverage reduces mortality rates among low-income adults. Our estimates suggest that approximately 15,600 deaths would have been averted had the ACA expansions been adopted nationwide as originally intended by the ACA.

Further, the study says that the most significant health benefits available to the people in states where the governors accepted the FREE MONEY! came in the ability of those people to schedule regular visits to general practitioners and to access preventative care.

As the report's conclusion says:
There is robust evidence that Medicaid increases the use of health care, including types of care that are well-established as efficacious such as prescription drugs and screening and early detection of cancers that are responsive to treatment. Given this, it may seem obvious that Medicaid would improve objective measures of health. However, due to data constraints, this relationship has been difficult to demonstrate empirically, leading to widespread skepticism that Medicaid has any salutary effect on health whatsoever.

Our paper overcomes documented data challenges by taking advantage of large- scare federal survey data that has been linked to administrative records on mortality. Using these data, we show that the Medicaid expansions substantially reduced mortality rates among those who stood to benefit the most.

The original intent of the ACA was to have the Medicaid expansion applied nationwide. Strict constructionist textualist John Roberts carved a huge loophole in the law and Republican governors threw themselves through it, d**gging sick people behind them. Some of those people died because of what they did.
https://egbertowillies.com/2019/03/16/trump-medicaid-gop/
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/07/22/15000-americans-died-because-red-state-republicans-refused-to-expand-medicaid.html
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a28472403/15000-americans-died-medicaid-expansion-obamacare/

Robert Wilson Loc: Texas

What nut wrote the previous article?

Gatsby

The tax on "Cadillac" healthcare plans was supposed to be a major source of funding for the ACA.

"The House v**ed almost unanimously to repeal the tax, not only a key cost-containment provision in Barack Obama’s signature health law but also one of the main ways it was supposed to pay for itself."

Repeal is expected to balloon deficits by nearly $200 billion over the next decade.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/house-v**es-to-repeal-obamacare-tax-once-seen-as-key-to-health-law/ar-AAEt0TD?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp

rumitoid

There are three sources in plain view.

Rose42

They are all far left rags written purposely with incendiary language. The first called it genocide. Low caliber writing. That means do your own research.

Amazing there isn’t near the same amount of outrage for 800,000 innocents k**led every year.

rumitoid

Have you done your own research to dismiss the claims or just the lazy complaint about "far left rags"? Case closed? And why do you guys always misdirect a thread about one thing that it appears you cannot refute to something unrelated to the topic that you think makes you look good? A total non-sequitur. Respond honestly to the thread as to the best of your knowledge and research or just say you don't know. Or find a far right rag that appears to refute those findings. Have you even bothered to google what the price was for Governors to refuse medicare?

Rose42

You need help.

rumitoid

That is way too funny for someone who is apparently incapable of using a search engine.