Surely not even you are stupid enough to think that replacing millions of poor people who were using the emergency room as their primary medical care option with millions of Jessica Sanfords (middle class people who can no longer afford insurance) using the emergency room as their primary care option will make "America healthier"?
I stand corrected...Expanding Medicaid is a huge improvement over the prior status. Even if that was all that the ACA did, blah blah blah...
Of course that's when we're not busy trying to steal Grandma's Social Security money and throwing her out into the street...Long Run wrote:That's understandable since the RNC is running out of babies that they can target and so are having to pivot to the goal of keeping millions of people from getting health insurance.
I don't know rubato, Nixon's expansion of medicare and Medicaid in 1971 (100 years after reconstruction) and enactment of medicare part D while W was president (even later) rival the expansion of Medicaid you are touting as a huge improvement.Expanding Medicaid is a huge improvement over the prior status. Even if that was all that the ACA did it would be better than any Republican-led new social policy since reconstruction.
Gee whiz, who's memory would that be?...someone's memory sucks
Yes, he does have that affect...You do make it easier to think that it should be unaffordable in at least one case.
Well you can't really blame him for that...Leaving out the ad hominems and bluster, your post sadly contains er.... nothing
Well rubato--take a closer look at the reforms of 1971 before you characterize them as small; it was a fairly significant overhaul and helped many, and this during a time when we were mired in an expensive war.rubato wrote:Medicaid was passed in 1965. The change in 1971 was very small and entirely voluntary on the part of the states, nothing.
Medicare part D is a small improvement in care for people who already had health insurance and care. And the Democrats did not try to derail, block, and lie about it as the Republicans have done with Obamacare.
It remains true that there is no Republican initiative which helps people to this degree.
I have seen no evidence that the Welfare reform act improved the std of living in any state. Unless punishing single parents and their children is "better".
yrs,
rubato
I thought reducing the cost of HI was one of those Obama promises not a fantasy of the Heritage Foundation. I recall this being said when he was on the stump:rubato wrote: The ACA is valuable because more people will have access to healthcare. The whole thing about the exchanges reducing the cost of HI was always a fantasy of the Heritage Foundation. Pure horseshit by people who play "fantasy league" economics.
Only an asshole wants more people to die needlessly when we are more than rich enough to take care of them.
Yrs,
Rubato
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -premium-/"I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."
......
Cutler acknowledged that Obama made "occasional misstatements” that tied the $2,500 reduction to premiums and not total medical spending. We can't judge whether Obama misspoke, but we checked the Project Vote Smart database of public statements by politicians, which shows that Obama said premiums (and only premiums) would go down for the typical or average family by $2,500 repeatedly.
As I said, the only changes were optional and relatively minor compared to extending HC overall to millions more people.http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wor ... meline.pdf
1971:
States are given the option to cover services
in intermediate care facilities (ICFs) for the elderly
and individuals with disabilities with lower level of
care needs than those available in skilled nursing
facilities. They are also given the option of covering
services in facilities for individuals with mental
retardation (ICFs/MR).
