Medicare no better than no insurance.

[Listening]

Oregon Study: Medicaid 'Had No Significant Effect' On Health Outcomes vs. Being Uninsured - Forbes

For three years, an incredibly nerdy—but consequential—debate has raged among health policy researchers regarding Medicaid, America’s government-run health-care program for the poor. Piles of studies have shown that people on Medicaid have health outcomes that are no better, and often worse, than those with no insurance at all. But supporters of Obamacare were cheered in 2011 when a lone study, out of Oregon, purported to show that Medicaid was better than being uninsured. Yesterday, however, the authors of the Oregon study published their updated, two-year results, finding that Medicaid “generated no significant improvement in measured physical health outcomes.” The result calls into question the $450 billion a year we spend on Medicaid, and the fact that Obamacare throws 11 million more Americans into this broken program.

***************

I'm shocked.....

 

[Mr. H.]

Well that's all moot at this point, right? There ain't no uninsured in America no mo'!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Typical reactionary nonsense: Oregon Study: Medicaid 'Had No Significant Effect' On Health Outcomes vs. Being Uninsured - Forbes

(1) The uninsured that come into Medicare typically have far more serious health issues than the long time insured.

(2) The cost of the program is far less expensive than private insurance.

(3) And over time many do improve their health and longevity.

 

[Mr. H.]

Ahhhh.... shaddap.