Everyone cant claim to be poor, that has a paper trail....For those who are challenged by division: $100,000,000 (budget) 600,000 (people) that's a mere $166.67 / person / year.
So how much medical care are you going to get for $160 / year?
Everyone will claim to be poor and refuse to pay.
Quality of services rendered will go into the toilet, it'll be medical care of the last resort.
For those who are challenged by division: $100,000,000 (budget) 600,000 (people) that's a mere $166.67 / person / year.
So how much medical care are you going to get for $160 / year?
Everyone will claim to be poor and refuse to pay.
Quality of services rendered will go into the toilet, it'll be medical care of the last resort.
Hmmm.. as opposed to what? I don't think you get insurance. Right now.. those people are still using services.. just the most inefficient way.. i.e the emergency room.
Second.. not all of those 600,000 people will be using the insurance. Only a small portion of those folks will be using it. and if it prevents them from using say the emergency room.. it could save millions.
Everyone cant claim to be poor, that has a paper trail....
Also, the city will save a ton by not subsidizing uninsured ER visits.
Will Medicaid expansion save the country money as people stop using expensive emergency rooms for primary care?
Not yet, suggest the latest findings from a landmark study published online Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The study of Medicaid patients in Oregon who got Medicaid in 2008 found their ER use stayed high two years after they gained the health insurance coverage — even as they also increased their visits to doctors' offices.
All eyes have been on Oregon to answer this question about ER use because, eight years ago, the state tried an experiment. It wanted to expand Medicaid, but it didn't have the money to cover every eligible resident.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health...-room-use-stays-high-in-oregon-medicaid-study
Or probably not.
Coverage expansions that expand access to primary care do tend to be associated with reductions in ER visits. Healthy San Francisco, which presumably is the inspiration for NYC Care since it's the same model of a municipal heath program linking people to primary care clinics, saw ER visits fall after its implementation in 2007. For that matter, so did Oregon after its 2012 Medicaid reforms ("Oregonians use ER less, docs more after Medicaid expansion").
[h=1]Mayor de Blasio announces health care for all NYC residents[/h]https://abc7ny.com/politics/mayor-de-blasio-announces-health-care-for-all-nyc-residents/5034167/
NEW YORK (WABC) --
Mayor Bill de Blasio announced Tuesday that New York City is rolling out a $100-million-per-year program to provide health care to all residents, including undocumented immigrants.
The new program, NYC Care, will ensure health care for the estimated 600,000 people without health insurance in the city.
The mayor said he believes too many city residents turn to hospital emergency rooms for health care. Instead, NYC Care is intended to connect these New Yorkers with primary-care doctors, specialty care, mental health services and prescription drugs.
Health care will be guaranteed to all residents, regardless of someone's ability to pay or immigration status.
Patients will be charged on a sliding scale, with the poorest New Yorkers paying nothing.
No duh. This is healthcare not magic. The people we already failed are now having their kidneys and hearts fail. Giving them coverage now wont save them, but it will save the next generations and the costs associated with them. Its an investment and to think it will have immediate effects on people with end stage disease is seriously wishful thinking.Or probably not.
I think at best the data from the results is conflicted and inconsistent, as the Oregon study I cited showed the opposite after 2 studies, I believe. :shrug:
No duh. This is healthcare not magic. The people we already failed are now having their kidneys and hearts fail. Giving them coverage now wont save them, but it will save the next generations and the costs associated with them. Its an investment and to think it will have immediate effects on people with end stage disease is seriously wishful thinking.
Do you think we should continue this cycle of people not getting treatment until the collapse and we cover their emergency bills? Or should we pay for some cheap blood pressure pills and keep people working longer, stronger?
No duh. This is healthcare not magic. The people we already failed are now having their kidneys and hearts fail. Giving them coverage now wont save them, but it will save the next generations and the costs associated with them. Its an investment and to think it will have immediate effects on people with end stage disease is seriously wishful thinking.
Do you think we should continue this cycle of people not getting treatment until the collapse and we cover their emergency bills? Or should we pay for some cheap blood pressure pills and keep people working longer, stronger?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?