15,000 Americans Died So Republican Governors Could Stick It to Obama

[Mainecat]

15,000 Americans Died So Republican Governors Could Stick It to Obama

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, dragging sick people behind them. Some of those people died because of what they did. 

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a28472403/15000-americans-died-medicaid-expansion-obamacare/

[Zambroski]

Yes, this all adds up.  “Esquire magazine” is a fine source for factual information.

 

[jtssrx]

Turning down free money? That sums up this country in a nutshell

[Momorider]

Is there a more gullible easily gut hooked shitforbrains insane retard then FAKENEWSMAINECUNT??? seriously 

[jtssrx]

Oh a MC go fuck yourself. Not once since I’ve been on this site have I seem you post one negative thing about a Democrat. How many millions of people got fucked by Obamacare when they lost their doctor or lost their plan after Obama claimed you could keep both. 

 

Your partisan hackery is really fucking annoying  

[Mainecat]

7 minutes ago, jtssrx said:

Oh a MC go fuck yourself. Not once since I’ve been on this site have I seem you post one negative thing about a Democrat. How many millions of people got fucked by Obamacare when they lost their doctor or lost their plan after Obama claimed you could keep both. 

 

Your partisan hackery is really fucking annoying  

Most didn’t lose their doctors those that did just  picked another doctor. Those that died didn’t get that choice their republican governors decided they should not get any healthcare and sentenced them to death.

You selfish prick.

Edited July 23, 2019 by Mainecat

[Momorider]

18 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

Most didn’t lose their doctors those that did just  picked another doctor. Those that died didn’t get that choice their republican governors decided they should not get any healthcare and sentenced them to death.

You selfish prick.

They never had insurance before Barry's self imposed healthcare you brain dead stupid fuck

[Beavis and Butt-Head]

4 hours ago, Momorider said:

Is there a more gullible easily gut hooked shitforbrains insane retard then FAKENEWSMAINECUNT??? seriously 

Check this out.     https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/esquire-magazine/

here the quoted bold from that link. 

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation.  They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.

[Badger**]

[steve from amherst]

See , they know the answer to global warming is reducing the population.

[MILFMAN]

Mainecat, please research before you post.

Maine was one of the states that turned down the so-called FREE money. It costs the state real money to continue the program. The new democratic gov did accept it, but has to plan how to pay for it to continue. 

 

 

[JEFF]

12 hours ago, Mainecat said:

Most didn’t lose their doctors those that did just  picked another doctor. Those that died didn’t get that choice their republican governors decided they should not get any healthcare and sentenced them to death.

You selfish prick.

 I lost my local Hospital. Does that count?

Have you tried to pick a doctor recently? Not exactly an easy task. 

 

[revkevsdi]

7 hours ago, Beavis and Butt-Head said:

Check this out.     https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/esquire-magazine/

here the quoted bold from that link. 

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation.  They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.

Did you intentionally leave out the part where they are rate high in factual reporting?

[revkevsdi]

12 hours ago, Zambroski said:

Yes, this all adds up.  “Esquire magazine” is a fine source for factual information.

 

It really pissed you off when someone posts from sources that get high ratings for factual reporting. 

Poor snowflake. 

[revkevsdi]

12 hours ago, Mainecat said:

15,000 Americans Died So Republican Governors Could Stick It to Obama

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, dragging sick people behind them. Some of those people died because of what they did. 

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a28472403/15000-americans-died-medicaid-expansion-obamacare/

 

That is nuts. Letting 15,000 Americans die because of their partisan bullshit. 

And Trumpsters think it’s 4 brown girls that hate America. 

[Mainecat]

More proof Republicans only care about themselves.

Sick fucks

[racer254]

13 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

 

That is nuts. Letting 15,000 Americans die because of their partisan bullshit. 

And Trumpsters think it’s 4 brown girls that hate America. 

I think you really need to sit back and take a good look at what you are reading.  Common sense ain't so common.  The correlation of republicans not taking free money causing people to died is NONSENSE.  BTW, we have a spending problem, yet all the liberals believing this shit think there is such a thing as "free" money.  This is the type of articles that the onion usually puts out.

[revkevsdi]

3 minutes ago, racer254 said:

I think you really need to sit back and take a good look at what you are reading.  Common sense ain't so common.  The correlation of republicans not taking free money causing people to died is NONSENSE.  BTW, we have a spending problem, yet all the liberals believing this shit think there is such a thing as "free" money.  This is the type of articles that the onion usually puts out.

Are you saying Republicans wouldn’t intentionally scuttle ACA in order to make Obama look bad and win votes?

[Snake]

23 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

 

That is nuts. Letting 15,000 Americans die because of their partisan bullshit. 

And Trumpsters think it’s 4 brown girls that hate America. 

Over the past two decades, the general Canadian attitude toward wait times for medical treatment seems to have evolved into a resigned acceptance of this ostensibly “mild nuisance” in an otherwise excellent system.

It’s time for a reality check.

Since 1993, the average wait for treatment has almost doubled (to 18.2 weeks in 2013), per capita public healthcare expenditures have increased by about 40 per cent (after adjusting for inflation), and it is becoming increasingly apparent that patients are suffering the consequences.  

And yet, there is no real indication that politicians intend to introduce meaningful reforms to solve this problem.

It seems we have become comfortably numb to this fundamental flaw that is now a defining feature of Canadian healthcare.

Unfortunately, wait times are not benign inconveniences – especially not when they are as long and ubiquitous as those in Canada. Many patients face physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, and lost economic productivity (about $1,200 per patient) while waiting for treatment in this country.

For example, Statistics Canada found that about one fifth of patients who visited a specialist, and about 11 per cent of those waiting for non-emergency surgery, were adversely affected by their wait. Many reported experiencing worry, stress, anxiety, pain, and difficulties with daily activities.

Protracted wait times may also result in potentially treatable illnesses and injuries becoming chronic, permanent, debilitating conditions. In such circumstances, requiring patients to accept inordinately long waiting times, without the opportunity to seek alternative treatment denies them their basic human right to lead healthy lives (as recognized by the Supreme Court in 2005). It is precisely for this reason that Dr. Brian Day, former head of the Canadian Medical Association, is fighting a court case in British Columbia to allow private treatment for those patients who have fallen through the cracks of the public system. One of his co-plaintiffs has already died while waiting for the trial, while another is permanently disabled because of neglect on the public wait list.

Sadly, their stories are not isolated cases. In a recent study, Nadeem Esmail, Taylor Jackson and I investigated whether the changes (mostly increases) in wait times between 1993 and 2009 had any impact on mortality rates. After controlling for relevant factors (physicians, health expenditures, age, Gross Domestic Product, inequality, and gender), we found that there was, indeed, a statistically significant relationship between wait times and the incidents of female deaths.

Specifically, after crunching the numbers we estimated between 25,456 and 63,090 Canadian women may have died as a result of increased wait times during this period. Large as this number is, it doesn’t even begin to quantify the possibility of increased disability and poorer quality of life as a result of protracted wait times.

Clearly, wait times may have serious consequences for some patients. It is inhumane and immoral to force these patients to choose between long waits in the public system (risking their health and well-being) and leaving their homeland (and families) to seek treatment elsewhere.

Fortunately, the noble goal of universal healthcare can be achieved without paying for it with patients’ lives. In fact, the experience of other countries suggests that wait times and single-payer insurance are neither necessary, nor common features of successful universal healthcare systems around the world. Data from the Commonwealth Fund, and studies by Fraser Institute have repeatedly shown that countries like Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, Japan and Australia ensure universal healthcare for their residents without the long wait times found in Canada.

How do they do it? By encouraging competition between regulated private insurers, requiring patient cost-sharing (through co-payments and deductibles with annual limits), and replacing global budgets with activity based funding for hospitals (so that money follows the patient).

Defenders of Canada’s status quo will likely balk at these suggestions and cling to their dream of government-delivered universal healthcare – ignoring the fact that it simply doesn’t work for many patients. But those who are pragmatic, and truly committed to fixing our broken system, should seriously consider implementing reforms that seem to have worked in other countries that are equally committed to universal access to health care.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/while-politicians-dither-patients-die

[racer254]

1 minute ago, revkevsdi said:

Are you saying Republicans wouldn’t intentionally scuttle ACA in order to make Obama look bad and win votes?

LOL.  I thought republicans killed 15000 Americans?  That's what the article is implying.  Oh look, another title and article designed to deceive, brought to you by a typical liberal.  Imagine that.

[Snake]

Last year, Canadians waited a median of almost 20 weeks to receive specialist treatment after being referred by a general practitioner, according to a new report from The Fraser Institute. In practical terms, that's the equivalent of getting a referral this week and waiting until May for treatment.

[revkevsdi]

3 minutes ago, racer254 said:

LOL.  I thought republicans killed 15000 Americans?  That's what the article is implying.  Oh look, another title and article designed to deceive, brought to you by a typical liberal.  Imagine that.

That doesn’t answer my question. 

But I will go back to your original comment that I should look at what I am reading. 

The article was published on Esquire which has a left bias but is high on factual reporting.  The article was written by theses guys. 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-bureau-of-economic-research-nber/

The first article I clicked on called them A right wing funded organization that never veers from the Republican Party line. But I thought it was best to stick with media bias fact check since both sides quote them frequently.   

Now what do you think of the source?

[Cold War]

20 minutes ago, racer254 said:

I think you really need to sit back and take a good look at what you are reading.  Common sense ain't so common.  The correlation of republicans not taking free money causing people to died is NONSENSE.  BTW, we have a spending problem, yet all the liberals believing this shit think there is such a thing as "free" money.  This is the type of articles that the onion usually puts out.

Can you imagine lapping this up?  

 

[steve from amherst]

So where do they keep this free money ? I want to go get some

[revkevsdi]

16 minutes ago, Snake said:

Over the past two decades, the general Canadian attitude toward wait times for medical treatment seems to have evolved into a resigned acceptance of this ostensibly “mild nuisance” in an otherwise excellent system.

It’s time for a reality check.

Since 1993, the average wait for treatment has almost doubled (to 18.2 weeks in 2013), per capita public healthcare expenditures have increased by about 40 per cent (after adjusting for inflation), and it is becoming increasingly apparent that patients are suffering the consequences.  

And yet, there is no real indication that politicians intend to introduce meaningful reforms to solve this problem.

It seems we have become comfortably numb to this fundamental flaw that is now a defining feature of Canadian healthcare.

Unfortunately, wait times are not benign inconveniences – especially not when they are as long and ubiquitous as those in Canada. Many patients face physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, and lost economic productivity (about $1,200 per patient) while waiting for treatment in this country.

For example, Statistics Canada found that about one fifth of patients who visited a specialist, and about 11 per cent of those waiting for non-emergency surgery, were adversely affected by their wait. Many reported experiencing worry, stress, anxiety, pain, and difficulties with daily activities.

Protracted wait times may also result in potentially treatable illnesses and injuries becoming chronic, permanent, debilitating conditions. In such circumstances, requiring patients to accept inordinately long waiting times, without the opportunity to seek alternative treatment denies them their basic human right to lead healthy lives (as recognized by the Supreme Court in 2005). It is precisely for this reason that Dr. Brian Day, former head of the Canadian Medical Association, is fighting a court case in British Columbia to allow private treatment for those patients who have fallen through the cracks of the public system. One of his co-plaintiffs has already died while waiting for the trial, while another is permanently disabled because of neglect on the public wait list.

Sadly, their stories are not isolated cases. In a recent study, Nadeem Esmail, Taylor Jackson and I investigated whether the changes (mostly increases) in wait times between 1993 and 2009 had any impact on mortality rates. After controlling for relevant factors (physicians, health expenditures, age, Gross Domestic Product, inequality, and gender), we found that there was, indeed, a statistically significant relationship between wait times and the incidents of female deaths.

Specifically, after crunching the numbers we estimated between 25,456 and 63,090 Canadian women may have died as a result of increased wait times during this period. Large as this number is, it doesn’t even begin to quantify the possibility of increased disability and poorer quality of life as a result of protracted wait times.

Clearly, wait times may have serious consequences for some patients. It is inhumane and immoral to force these patients to choose between long waits in the public system (risking their health and well-being) and leaving their homeland (and families) to seek treatment elsewhere.

Fortunately, the noble goal of universal healthcare can be achieved without paying for it with patients’ lives. In fact, the experience of other countries suggests that wait times and single-payer insurance are neither necessary, nor common features of successful universal healthcare systems around the world. Data from the Commonwealth Fund, and studies by Fraser Institute have repeatedly shown that countries like Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, Japan and Australia ensure universal healthcare for their residents without the long wait times found in Canada.

How do they do it? By encouraging competition between regulated private insurers, requiring patient cost-sharing (through co-payments and deductibles with annual limits), and replacing global budgets with activity based funding for hospitals (so that money follows the patient).

Defenders of Canada’s status quo will likely balk at these suggestions and cling to their dream of government-delivered universal healthcare – ignoring the fact that it simply doesn’t work for many patients. But those who are pragmatic, and truly committed to fixing our broken system, should seriously consider implementing reforms that seem to have worked in other countries that are equally committed to universal access to health care.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/while-politicians-dither-patients-die

 

14 minutes ago, Snake said:

Last year, Canadians waited a median of almost 20 weeks to receive specialist treatment after being referred by a general practitioner, according to a new report from The Fraser Institute. In practical terms, that's the equivalent of getting a referral this week and waiting until May for treatment.

• Overall, we rate Fraser Institute strongly Right-Center biased based on policy positions that favors business and Mixed for factual reporting due to false and misleading claims regarding global warming.

https://www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/charitable-fraser-institute-received-43-million-foreign-funding-2000

Fraser institute are brutal. 

They have always seemed like a large reputable org. But it’s a bit of a sham.