Saved by Medicaid: New Evidence on Health Insurance and Mortality from the Universe of Low-Income Adults

Go **** yourself.

Your assertion is based on the false premise being pushed by Repubs that Medicaid rolls are filled with able bodied people who choose not to work. Are there some? No doubt there are. Is the claim that only the able bodied will be hurt by the draconian cuts to Medicaid true? Absolutely not.
The choice is work or die. Apparently many dems think people will choose to die instead of work, volunteer, or go to school. In some cases they may be right. I really don't have any sympathy for able bodied people who choose not to work, volunteer, or go to school. As far as illegals go, they have the choice to self deport or die.
 
We examine the causal effect of health insurance on mortality using the universe of low-income adults, a dataset of 37 million individuals identified by linking the 2010 Census to administrative tax data. Our methodology leverages state-level variation in the timing and adoption of Medicaid expansions under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and earlier waivers and adheres to a preregistered analysis plan, a rarely used approach in observational studies in economics. We find that expansions increased Medicaid enrollment by 12 percentage points and reduced the mortality of the low-income adult population by 2.5 percent, suggesting a 21 percent reduction in the mortality hazard of new enrollees. Mortality reductions accrued not only to older age cohorts, but also to younger adults, who accounted for nearly half of life-years saved due to their longer remaining lifespans and large share of the low-income adult population.

One can only hope that over time the lies told by Repubs regarding Medicaid cuts and "able bodied adults" will become fully understood by the voting public. This, despite the most cynical political maneuver I can recall.

At the core of Republicans’ newly finalized domestic policy package is an important political calculation. It provides its most generous tax breaks early on and reserves some of its most painful benefit cuts until after the 2026 midterm elections.
You guys are going all in on the PEOPLE WILL DIE propaganda, huh?
 
The choice is work or die. Apparently many dems think people will choose to die instead of work, volunteer, or go to school. In some cases they may be right. I really don't have any sympathy for able bodied people who choose not to work, volunteer, or go to school. As far as illegals go, they have the choice to self deport or die.
Repeating a steaming pile of crap didn't improve on it's gross inaccuracies.
 
I realize that is the lie you have chosen to believe. From AI.....

House Speaker Mike Johnson has stated that a proposed budget bill would not cut Medicaid, arguing that concerns about individuals losing coverage are "nonsense" and "overblown." He has claimed that the bill strengthens the program by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse and that any individuals who lose coverage do so by choice, for example, by not fulfilling work requirements.
However, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and several other organizations have disputed Johnson's claims.
According to the CBO:

  • The bill is projected to cut federal Medicaid spending by around $1 trillion over the next decade.
  • It is estimated that the bill would result in 11.8 million Americans losing health coverage under Medicaid over the next decade.
  • These projected cuts are a result of provisions such as work requirements for some able-bodied adults and more frequent eligibility checks.
Other sources further emphasize that the bill imposes work requirements that make it difficult to access and maintain coverage, leading to involuntary disenrollment for many. Some experts also argue that the claim of eliminating "$625 billion" in waste, fraud, and abuse is misleading, as the CBO score indicates a reduction in Medicaid spending of that amount, primarily through these restrictions on access.
Nothing is a lie until it's proven to be a lie.

The "work" requirement also includes looking for a job, and going to school to train for a job.

Also, a lot can happen in ten years. Medicaid recipients can get their heads out of the ass and take better care of their health.
 
The only method this administration understands is the caveman-style slash, burn and refuse to take any blame for it.

Instead of massive out-of-the-box cuts, what they COULD have done instead is provide the agency with the resources and tools that it needed to significantly cut their costs -- They could have run regular audits and been incentivized and rewarded for accurately and efficiently policing, enforcing, downsizing and staying downsized. That way the predictable slop and destruction could have been kept to an absolute minimum.

That would have been great and badly overdue. A solid accomplishment.

But no, that plan has too many ******* syllables in it. We're dealing with the Flintstones here.
 
Nothing is a lie until it's proven to be a lie.

The "work" requirement also includes looking for a job, and going to school to train for a job.

Also, a lot can happen in ten years. Medicaid recipients can get their heads out of the ass and take better care of their health.
You seem to enjoy making a lot of assumptions about those evil Medicaid recipients as a way to assuage your guilt.

Tolbert told us that “it will be hard to say that any hospital closures or other providers going out of business … is directly related to these Medicaid changes.” But there will be financial implications, she said.

Community health centers, for example, are required to provide care regardless of someone’s ability to pay, she said. So centers that see a decrease in their patients’ Medicaid coverage would face increased financial pressure.

Rural hospitals also could be at risk. The bill would prohibit states from increasing or instituting new provider taxes, which states have used to supplement payments to hospitals to cover uncompensated care, Tolbert explained.


Cuello said that some rural hospitals will go bankrupt because of the bill’s provisions. “I can say with a good degree of comfort that if you have, at current level of funding, a lot of hospitals at risk of closure, and you massively decrease funding … we can safely assume that there will be some greater number of hospitals that closes.”

Cuello pointed us to a June report from the Center for Healthcare Quality & Payment Reform that said about a third of rural hospitals in the U.S. “are at risk of closing because of the serious financial problems they are experiencing,” and 14%, or 314 rural hospitals, are “at immediate risk of closing.”
 
You seem to enjoy making a lot of assumptions about those evil Medicaid recipients as a way to assuage your guilt.

Tolbert told us that “it will be hard to say that any hospital closures or other providers going out of business … is directly related to these Medicaid changes.” But there will be financial implications, she said.

Community health centers, for example, are required to provide care regardless of someone’s ability to pay, she said. So centers that see a decrease in their patients’ Medicaid coverage would face increased financial pressure.

Rural hospitals also could be at risk. The bill would prohibit states from increasing or instituting new provider taxes, which states have used to supplement payments to hospitals to cover uncompensated care, Tolbert explained.

Cuello said that some rural hospitals will go bankrupt because of the bill’s provisions. “I can say with a good degree of comfort that if you have, at current level of funding, a lot of hospitals at risk of closure, and you massively decrease funding … we can safely assume that there will be some greater number of hospitals that closes.”


Cuello pointed us to a June report from the Center for Healthcare Quality & Payment Reform that said about a third of rural hospitals in the U.S. “are at risk of closing because of the serious financial problems they are experiencing,” and 14%, or 314 rural hospitals, are “at immediate risk of closing.”
What is the effect of illegals using the EDs of hospitals where there is no compensation whatsoever for the hospitals? Is this being factored into the above appraisal?
 
We examine the causal effect of health insurance on mortality using the universe of low-income adults, a dataset of 37 million individuals identified by linking the 2010 Census to administrative tax data. Our methodology leverages state-level variation in the timing and adoption of Medicaid expansions under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and earlier waivers and adheres to a preregistered analysis plan, a rarely used approach in observational studies in economics. We find that expansions increased Medicaid enrollment by 12 percentage points and reduced the mortality of the low-income adult population by 2.5 percent, suggesting a 21 percent reduction in the mortality hazard of new enrollees. Mortality reductions accrued not only to older age cohorts, but also to younger adults, who accounted for nearly half of life-years saved due to their longer remaining lifespans and large share of the low-income adult population.

One can only hope that over time the lies told by Repubs regarding Medicaid cuts and "able bodied adults" will become fully understood by the voting public. This, despite the most cynical political maneuver I can recall.

At the core of Republicans’ newly finalized domestic policy package is an important political calculation. It provides its most generous tax breaks early on and reserves some of its most painful benefit cuts until after the 2026 midterm elections.



Good thing Trump is cutting waste, fraud and abuse so the system is better, huh?
 
Yes, no kidding: health care leads to better outcomes in MOST cases.

Are you in favor of able-bodied people being on Medicaid because they don't want to work?
Those are few and far between.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom