Why would these states do this?

[Nickyjo]

Obamacare’s Survival Is Now Assured, but It Still Has One Big Problem (Published 2021)

Twelve states have refused to expand Medicaid, leaving millions of poor Americans without health coverage and Democrats divided over how to respond.

www.nytimes.com

The article states that better outcomes have occurred since Medicaid expansion, and that some states have voted to expand, with legislatures and governments refusing to go along with the vote. One excuse reported is wanting to cover the needy, but not single adults...Huh?

What is the conservative problem with this? Or rather, what has been the conservative problem with every attempt to join the rest of the developed world on health care? Then again, there is a map connected to the article that shows that most of the resistant states are the usual suspects, among the poorest states, the ones that used to own slaves and kept blacks from voting back in the day, and nowadays provide less worker protection in other areas. And some maintain that liberals promote class warfare. Go figure.

 

[phoenix2020]

It has the letters ‘Obama’ in its colloquial name so they have to vote against it. If the exact same thing were called TrumpCare they would happily go along with it. I think this approach could solve many problems. Offer antivaxxers the Trump Vaccine. Sign Republicans up for TrumpCare. Rename HR-1 to ‘Donald Trump America First Voting Act’ and all our problems go away.

 

[Napoleon]

I always have to smile at these “the rest of the developed world” comparisons because nobody has proposed anything even remotely like what the “rest of the developed world” does.

 

[independentusa]

Obamacare’s Survival Is Now Assured, but It Still Has One Big Problem (Published 2021)

Twelve states have refused to expand Medicaid, leaving millions of poor Americans without health coverage and Democrats divided over how to respond.

www.nytimes.com

The article states that better outcomes have occurred since Medicaid expansion, and that some states have voted to expand, with legislatures and governments refusing to go along with the vote. One excuse reported is wanting to cover the needy, but not single adults...Huh?

What is the conservative problem with this? Or rather, what has been the conservative problem with every attempt to join the rest of the developed world on health care? Then again, there is a map connected to the article that shows that most of the resistant states are the usual suspects, among the poorest states, the ones that used to own slaves and kept blacks from voting back in the day, and nowadays provide less worker protection in other areas. And some maintain that liberals promote class warfare. Go figure.

I would suggest making medicaid a federal operated program like Medicare and taxing the states for their share of any costs.

 

[Nickyjo]

I always have to smile at these “the rest of the developed world” comparisons because nobody has proposed anything even remotely like what the “rest of the developed world” does.

True enough, those countries go much farther than what was/is politically possible in the US. Makes me wonder if Medicare would fly if proposed today.

 

[Greenbeard]

Obamacare’s Survival Is Now Assured, but It Still Has One Big Problem (Published 2021)

Twelve states have refused to expand Medicaid, leaving millions of poor Americans without health coverage and Democrats divided over how to respond.

www.nytimes.com

The article states that better outcomes have occurred since Medicaid expansion, and that some states have voted to expand, with legislatures and governments refusing to go along with the vote. One excuse reported is wanting to cover the needy, but not single adults...Huh?

What is the conservative problem with this? Or rather, what has been the conservative problem with every attempt to join the rest of the developed world on health care? Then again, there is a map connected to the article that shows that most of the resistant states are the usual suspects, among the poorest states, the ones that used to own slaves and kept blacks from voting back in the day, and nowadays provide less worker protection in other areas. And some maintain that liberals promote class warfare. Go figure.

Maybe those states want worse health outcomes and more rural hospitals to close. Perhaps those states are run by bad people with nefarious motives!

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Maybe those states want worse health outcomes and more rural hospitals to close. Perhaps those states are run by bad people with nefarious motives!

It helps them "prove" (not really but they're able to make an excuse) that "democracy doesn't work" and that "libtard socialism failed".
Their worst nightmare would be if it worked, which it would if they accepted it.
The entire ACA platform was originally based on the idea that all 50 states would use it.

 

[Greenbeard]

It helps them "prove" (not really but they're able to make an excuse) that "democracy doesn't work" and that "libtard socialism failed".
Their worst nightmare would be if it worked, which it would if they accepted it.
The entire ACA platform was originally based on the idea that all 50 states would use it.

But it's worked everywhere it's been implemented. So much so that democracy has stepped to try to make it work even in the holdout states, but the GOP elites hate democracy.

Missouri governor drops voter-approved Medicaid expansion

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson has dropped plans to expand the state's Medicaid program after the Legislature declined to provide money for a measure approved by voters.

apnews.com

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

But it's worked everywhere it's been implemented. So much so that democracy has stepped to try to make it work even in the holdout states, but the GOP elites hate democracy.

Missouri governor drops voter-approved Medicaid expansion

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson has dropped plans to expand the state's Medicaid program after the Legislature declined to provide money for a measure approved by voters.

apnews.com

I think we both said the same thing just now

 

[Jay59]

The public option of ACA was designed to fail. With that in mind, is it surprising other aspects suffer from shoddy draftmanship?

 

[Greenbeard]

The public option of ACA was designed to fail.

There is no public option in the ACA. The Medicaid expansion, on the other hand, has been quite successful. E.g.,

• The Affordable Care Act Reduced Income Inequality In The US
• Baby Survival Rates Improved in States With Affordable Care Act, Data Show
• Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests fell under the Affordable Care Act
• Medical care, health have improved for low-income adults under ACA
• ACA linked to reduced racial disparities, earlier diagnosis and treatment in cancer care
• Affordable Care Act Increased Rate of Early Cancer Diagnoses
• Uninsured cancer patients saw increased coverage for care following Medicaid expansion
• ACA credited with earlier diagnosis of gynecologic cancers in young women

 

[Jay59]

There is no public option in the ACA. The Medicaid expansion, on the other hand, has been quite successful. E.g.,

• The Affordable Care Act Reduced Income Inequality In The US
• Baby Survival Rates Improved in States With Affordable Care Act, Data Show
• Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests fell under the Affordable Care Act
• Medical care, health have improved for low-income adults under ACA
• ACA linked to reduced racial disparities, earlier diagnosis and treatment in cancer care
• Affordable Care Act Increased Rate of Early Cancer Diagnoses
• Uninsured cancer patients saw increased coverage for care following Medicaid expansion
• ACA credited with earlier diagnosis of gynecologic cancers in young women

The third one is a decent source. The rest are Kool-Aid.

Saying that Affordable Care Organizations in the state exchanges are not a public option is disingenuous. Regardless, they are actuarially unsound by design. Dr. Ezekial Emanual famously predicted private insurance would die or change drastically. Instead, it was the exchanges that failed, spectacularly.

Insurance Companies as We Know Them Are About to Die

Thanks to Obamacare, your much-hated insurance firm probably won't be around much longer. But the companies that will replace them might not be much better.

newrepublic.com

The Medicaid portion of the law has failed in other ways, though there has been massive propaganda support from before its implementation. You gave a sampling. One famous example is the completely bogus claim to have insured 30 million who were not insured before, even though there was almost no additional coverage. The claim is based on a tabulation change and nothing substantial.

 

[Greenbeard]

Saying that Affordable Care Organizations in the state exchanges are not a public option is disingenuous.

Accountable Care Organizations are not "in" state exchanges, whatever that's meant to mean in this context. They're not public and they're not insurance options, they are health care provider organizations engaged in particular contracting arrangements with insurers. What they're in is insurers' provider networks. Mass General Hospital is part of an ACO--a claim that this organizational and contracting decision somehow makes this hospital a public health insurance option would be a nonsensical string of words.

Regardless, they are actuarially unsound by design. Dr. Ezekial Emanual famously predicted private insurance would die or change drastically. Instead, it was the exchanges that failed, spectacularly.

The exchanges are doing fine. Unclear what this has to do with Medicaid expansion, the topic of conversation.

The Medicaid portion of the law has failed in other ways, though there has been massive propaganda support from before its implementation.

No, Medicaid expansion hasn't "failed in other ways." It insured millions of people, improving their financial security and health. Which is its goal. The end.

 

[Jay59]

Accountable Care Organizations are not "in" state exchanges, whatever that's meant to mean in this context. They're not public and they're not insurance options, they are health care provider organizations engaged in particular contracting arrangements with insurers. What they're in is insurers' provider networks. Mass General Hospital is part of an ACO--a claim that this organizational and contracting decision somehow makes this hospital a public health insurance option would be a nonsensical string of words.

Since we are specifying ACO's, why quibble?

The exchanges are doing fine. Unclear what this has to do with Medicaid expansion, the topic of conversation.

The exchanges are an abject failure. Witness the number with only one option. Specific states have forced a poor design to function, but many states never took the problem on in the first place.

No, Medicaid expansion hasn't "failed in other ways." It insured millions of people, improving their financial security and health. Which is its goal. The end.

The big lie makes another appearance. The Medicaid expansion did not insure millions of new people. It failed its expressed goal. The end.

 

[Nickyjo]

The third one is a decent source. The rest are Kool-Aid.

Saying that Affordable Care Organizations in the state exchanges are not a public option is disingenuous. Regardless, they are actuarially unsound by design. Dr. Ezekial Emanual famously predicted private insurance would die or change drastically. Instead, it was the exchanges that failed, spectacularly.

Insurance Companies as We Know Them Are About to Die

Thanks to Obamacare, your much-hated insurance firm probably won't be around much longer. But the companies that will replace them might not be much better.

newrepublic.com

The Medicaid portion of the law has failed in other ways, though there has been massive propaganda support from before its implementation. You gave a sampling. One famous example is the completely bogus claim to have insured 30 million who were not insured before, even though there was almost no additional coverage. The claim is based on a tabulation change and nothing substantial.

I don't understand your last point. Many states expand Medicaid eligibility, for example . That expansion includes more people. Do you have an explanation as to why that doesn't increase the number insured? What would your policy on health care be?

 

[Greenbeard]

Since we are specifying ACO's, why quibble?

Because ACOs are health care provider organizations created to reform care delivery, they have nothing to do with the idea of a public health insurance option. Nor were ACOs "designed to fail," as you characterized the nonexistent public option. You seem very confused.

The exchanges are an abject failure. Witness the number with only one option. Specific states have forced a poor design to function, but many states never took the problem on in the first place.

You generally have to go into the desert or the wilderness to find a county with only one marketplace seller. 97% of buyers live in a county with multiple sellers.

Despite the rightwing aversion to marketplace competition, the marketplaces are in fact good.

The big lie makes another appearance. The Medicaid expansion did not insure millions of new people.

Truly bizarre statement.

 

[Jay59]

I don't understand your last point. Many states expand Medicaid eligibility, for example . That expansion includes more people. Do you have an explanation as to why that doesn't increase the number insured? What would your policy on health care be?

From inception, the claim was made, and Greenbeard repeated, that ACA insured millions who were not insured before. This is a lie and always has been.

Because ACOs are health care provider organizations created to reform care delivery, they have nothing to do with the idea of a public health insurance option. Nor were ACOs "designed to fail," as you characterized the nonexistent public option. You seem very confused.

What's confusing is why you think that the map below is anything but bad.

You generally have to go into the desert or the wilderness to find a county with only one marketplace seller. 97% of buyers live in a county with multiple sellers.

This means 10 million people have only one choice. That's bad and also evasive because multiple includes only two. 75 million people have at most two providers and you claim this is a good thing.

What a mess and it didn't--still doesn't--address the basic problem of affordable personal coverage.

Despite the rightwing aversion to marketplace competition, the marketplaces are in fact good.

There are states, where the marketplaces work. That is not a credit to ACA, but to the states.

The right has an aversion to marketplace competition.

Truly bizarre statement.

You got that right, though it happens to be your statement which was bizarre. Funny, too.

 

[Nickyjo]

From inception, the claim was made, and Greenbeard repeated, that ACA insured millions who were not insured before. This is a lie and always has been.
++ Show me, provide a link that says it’s a lie. Saying so don’t male it so.

What's confusing is why you think that the map below is anything but bad.


This means 10 million people have only one choice. That's bad and also evasive because multiple includes only two. 75 million people have at most two providers and you claim this is a good thing.


What a mess and it didn't--still doesn't--address the basic problem of affordable personal coverage.


There are states, where the marketplaces work. That is not a credit to ACA, but to the states.

The right has an aversion to marketplace competition.


You got that right, though it happens to be your statement which was bizarre. Funny, too.

++ I don’t get the map. Will post this and look again.

 

[Nickyjo]

++ I don’t get the map. Will post this and look again.

looked again... it seems that more liberal states have more options. Don’t see any other pattern. But I am a Medicare for all guy. Works for me, and bringing a generally healthier population into the mix might make it even better. Two reality points: one, actually an assumption, is that the ACA is probably all the democrats could get, such are the powers arrayed against national health insurance. A foot in the door so to speak, which moved the debate needle, as GOP and Trump wanted to replace the ACA, not just eliminate it. That means a victory for us liberals. The other reality is that we already have National health care. We insure many tens of millions of Americans (1/3 of the pop.?) with govt-sponsored health care. We just don’t insure everyone.

Questions for you: do you think the GOP will try to eliminate the ACA if the party regains power? I assume they won’t, much as Reagan let Medicare stand despite trashing it years before his election. And what plan for health care do you support: pre-ACA, some sort of plan that our neighbors north and south have, or some European model?

 

[Craig234]

Plutocrats don't want money going to the public.

 

[Greenbeard]

From inception, the claim was made, and Greenbeard repeated, that ACA insured millions who were not insured before. This is a lie and always has been.

The reason uninsurance hit an all-time low after the ACA's implementation is that tens of millions of American gained insurance.

Uninsured Rate Falls To Record Low Of 8.8% - KFF Health News

Census Bureau reports that 28.1 million people in the country were without insurance in 2016, down from 29 million the year before.

khn.org

You may be the only person in American in denial about this.

What's confusing is why you think that the map below is anything but bad.

It exposes your general cluelessness. Virtually no American lives in an area with only a single marketplace insurer. The large majority live in markets with three or more competitors.

Your lone example example of the "abject failure" of the marketplaces? "Witness the number with only one option." Indeed, witness! None.

There are states, where the marketplaces work. That is not a credit to ACA, but to the states.

I'd never dispute that the blue states have done a better job and done better by their residents. See the OP of this thread. That's literally the topic of conversation here!

 

[Visbek]

What is the conservative problem with this?

They hate helping the poor, even when it doesn't cost them anything.

They also despise the idea that government can do anything. Thus, they are outraged when government programs actually work reasonably well and/or are popular. (Of course, their beliefs that government is inherently ineffective somehow doesn't apply to police, which are somehow perfect in every way.)

Isn't that obvious?

 

[Jay59]

The reason uninsurance hit an all-time low after the ACA's implementation is that tens of millions of American gained insurance.

Uninsured Rate Falls To Record Low Of 8.8% - KFF Health News

Census Bureau reports that 28.1 million people in the country were without insurance in 2016, down from 29 million the year before.

khn.org

False.

The reason for this is that non-marketplace (ie not ACA complying) options were allowed. Thank Trump for that.

Health Insurance Alternatives to ACA Coverage | myhealthinsurance.com

Unable to obtain major medical coverage (or can't afford the premium)? There are other health insurance options and alternatives to going without coverage.

www.healthedeals.com

You may be the only person in American in denial about this.

If that's your story, I guess you have to stick with it.

It exposes your general cluelessness. Virtually no American lives in an area with only a single marketplace insurer. The large majority live in markets with three or more competitors.

Your own map proves you wrong, but a quarter of the country with only one or two options is the real problem. The denial is you on this point.

Your lone example example of the "abject failure" of the marketplaces? "Witness the number with only one option." Indeed, witness! None.

You are saying that there are no orange areas on the map and no orange wedge in the pie chart. You should get your eyes checked.

I'd never dispute that the blue states have done a better job and done better by their residents. See the OP of this thread. That's literally the topic of conversation here!

It's the federal government that let everyone down. We had massive tax hikes and this trainwreck of a system.

It's clear that facts mean nothing to you. You posted a map and then argued it does not say what it says. I leave you to your denial.

 

[Greenbeard]

False.

The reason for this is that non-marketplace (ie not ACA complying) options were allowed. Thank Trump for that.

Health Insurance Alternatives to ACA Coverage | myhealthinsurance.com

Unable to obtain major medical coverage (or can't afford the premium)? There are other health insurance options and alternatives to going without coverage.

www.healthedeals.com

Uninsurance fell like a stone after the ACA was implemented due to a combination of the Medicaid expansion and the marketplaces opening. It fell every year before hitting an all-time low in 2016. It turn rose every year under Trump due to his unique blend of incompetence and malice.



Trump's "innovation," letting insurers bamboozle Americans and ruin them financially, deserves condemnation, not thanks.

Health Insurance That Doesn’t Cover the Bills Has Flooded the Market Under Trump

It should come as no surprise that the Trump administration has made enabling predatory actions by bad actors and promoting junk insurance the centerpiece of its health care agenda, such as it is. Junk plans--"short term" health plans, despite the fact that they're now available for the entire...

debatepolitics.com

She’s stuck with $75,000 in bills after her ‘health care sharing ministry’ refuses to pay - The Boston Globe

Betsy Hargreaves’s surgery was successful, but her “insurer” refused to cover any of the costs, saying her surgery was the result of a preexisting condition.

www.bostonglobe.com

He Bought Health Insurance for Emergencies. Then He Fell Into a $33,601 Trap.

Since the Trump administration deregulated the health insurance industry, there’s been an explosion of short-term plans that leave patients with surprise bills and providers with huge revenue.

www.propublica.org

Your own map proves you wrong, but a quarter of the country with only one or two options is the real problem. The denial is you on this point.

"Marketplaces are an abject failure because 97% of shoppers have multiple options competing for their business" is a bad take and from this dancing you're doing it seems clear that realization has dawned on you somewhere else along the way. The anti-market right is going to have to come up with something better than that.

You are saying that there are no orange areas on the map and no orange wedge in the pie chart. You should get your eyes checked.

I'm saying there are no states (other than Delaware) with only a single option. That was your measure of failure, and by it the ACA is a success. A roaring success in most of the country, in fact. A handful of states have further to go but, as you correctly pointed out, those weaknesses lie in large part at the feet of the political leadership in those states.

Sure, there are a handful of empty counties mostly of desert or wilderness around the country with only a a single seller. But virtually no one lives there, and in the absence of business to compete for insurers have little reason to enter those barren counties.

It's the federal government that let everyone down. We had massive tax hikes and this trainwreck of a system.

This is just wingnut Mad Libs at this point.

 

[Jay59]

Uninsurance fell like a stone after the ACA was implemented due to a combination of the Medicaid expansion and the marketplaces opening. It fell every year before hitting an all-time low in 2016. It turn rose every year under Trump due to his unique blend of incompetence and malice.

View attachment 67340442

Trump's "innovation," letting insurers bamboozle Americans and ruin them financially, deserves condemnation, not thanks.

Health Insurance That Doesn’t Cover the Bills Has Flooded the Market Under Trump

It should come as no surprise that the Trump administration has made enabling predatory actions by bad actors and promoting junk insurance the centerpiece of its health care agenda, such as it is. Junk plans--"short term" health plans, despite the fact that they're now available for the entire...

debatepolitics.com

She’s stuck with $75,000 in bills after her ‘health care sharing ministry’ refuses to pay - The Boston Globe

Betsy Hargreaves’s surgery was successful, but her “insurer” refused to cover any of the costs, saying her surgery was the result of a preexisting condition.

www.bostonglobe.com

He Bought Health Insurance for Emergencies. Then He Fell Into a $33,601 Trap.

Since the Trump administration deregulated the health insurance industry, there’s been an explosion of short-term plans that leave patients with surprise bills and providers with huge revenue.

www.propublica.org

"Marketplaces are an abject failure because 97% of shoppers have multiple options competing for their business" is a bad take and from this dancing you're doing it seems clear that realization has dawned on you somewhere else along the way. The anti-market right is going to have to come up with something better than that.
I'm saying there are no states (other than Delaware) with only a single option. That was your measure of failure, and by it the ACA is a success. A roaring success in most of the country, in fact. A handful of states have further to go but, as you correctly pointed out, those weaknesses lie in large part at the feet of the political leadership in those states.
Sure, there are a handful of empty counties mostly of desert or wilderness around the country with only a a single seller. But virtually no one lives there, and in the absence of business to compete for insurers have little reason to enter those barren counties.

You have this bizarre notion that those numbers help your case instead of condemning it. Even repeating the lie that ACA caused a plunge in uninsured, it's damning.

This is just wingnut Mad Libs at this point.

The perfect comment on everything you just said.