U.S. Medicaid enrollment nears 7 million since Obamacare rollout

Comments (10)
REnninga wrote:

The healthier our American society becomes (due to universal access to healthcare insurance, universal preventative care coverage and expanded Medicaid coverage for those of lower financial means), the lower the demand will be on expensive uninsured emergency room treatment, and costly uninsured care after people are already in health crises. Those have had severe economic impacts on our society over the past few decades.

This is all about making America a healthier nation, and reducing the prospect that individuals and families will be wiped-out financially, bankrupted, … simply because they get sick.

The year-over-year statistical data from the affordable Care Act will before long persuade all Americans that it was the right thing to do, warts and all.

The mantra now should not be “Repeal it.” The mantra should now be “Embrace it, but improve it.”

Jul 11, 2014 5:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
bachcole wrote:

What you will NOT see is an improvement in longevity rates, infant mortality rates, total over-all health costs, etc. This is because 99% of what doctors do is not about building health; it is about removing symptoms. And most of the time this symptom removal is hard on the patient’s overall health, such as with chemotherapy. Obamacare is all about shifting the money burden around. Nothing else.

Jul 11, 2014 5:58pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
REnninga wrote:

“…What you will NOT see is an improvement in longevity rates, infant mortality rates”

RESPONSE:
Can you please further explain your contention that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (or ACA) will not yield an improvement “in longevity rates” or improvement in “infant mortality rates” …

Examples related to infant mortality/. The ACA provides for:
*High-risk human papillomavirus DNA testing in women with normal cytology results.
*Well-woman preventive care visit annually for adult women to obtain the recommended preventive services that are age and developmentally appropriate, including preconception care and many services necessary for prenatal care. This well-woman visit will, where appropriate, include other prenatal health and preventive care services
*Screening for gestational diabetes.
*Counseling on sexually transmitted infections for all sexually active women.
*Comprehensive lactation support and counseling, by a trained provider during pregnancy and/or in the postpartum period, and costs for renting breastfeeding equipment.
*Screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence.
*Counseling on sexually transmitted infections for all sexually active women.

Do you mean to suggest that these services noted above will not result in an improvement in infant mortality rates?

The United Sates is currently ranked only 34th of the nations in the world for infant mortality (2010, pre-ACA implementation), with a death rate of 5.4 infants per 1,000 live births (compared to 1st place Singapore with a rate of just 1.92 infant deaths per 1,000 live births).

What seems compelling is that every one of the 33 nations with lower rates of infant mortality than the United States (in 2010, pre-ACA implementation) already had comprehensive/universal healthcare for their populations. Pure coincidence?

I’ll await your reply with interest. Thanks.
Cheers!

Jul 11, 2014 8:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
bachcole wrote:

REnninga, you cite so many good features of ACA, but you fail to understand that we are already LAST in all health markers among industrialized nations because our medical doctors have been hijacked by the pharmaceutical companies and reductionist thinking. They are most excellent at traumatic and acute problems, like broken legs. But when it comes to preventing and HEALING chronic, degenerative RESULTS of unhealthy eating and lifestyle, medical doctors are worse than useless since they are at war with all healing modalities outside of their profession. MDs remove symptoms, and if those symptoms are due to traumatic or acute problems, then there is nothing better. But if you want to avoid diabetes, cancer, heart disease, or if you want to be healed from same, your best bet is to look elsewhere. But the ACA only benefits medical doctors.

Jul 12, 2014 9:37am EDT  --  Report as abuse
REnninga wrote:

@bachole, you further expounded on your own rhetoric and theory, but you didn’t answer my simple question in response to the contewntion in your first comment. Let me repeat it for you:

Question: “Do you mean to suggest that these services noted (below) will not result in an improvement in infant mortality rates?”

Examples related to infant mortality / The ACA provides for:
*High-risk human papillomavirus DNA testing in women with normal cytology results.
*Well-woman preventive care visit annually for adult women to obtain the recommended preventive services that are age and developmentally appropriate, including preconception care and many services necessary for prenatal care. This well-woman visit will, where appropriate, include other prenatal health and preventive care services
*Screening for gestational diabetes.
*Counseling on sexually transmitted infections for all sexually active women.
*Comprehensive lactation support and counseling, by a trained provider during pregnancy and/or in the postpartum period, and costs for renting breastfeeding equipment.
*Screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence.

Jul 12, 2014 9:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
bachcole wrote:

If you multiply zero by 10 or by 1,000,000, the result is the same. Modern American conventional medicine is INEFFECTIVE with regard to longevity, infant mortality, and the prevention and cure of degenerative diseases. So it does not matter how we arrange the funding.

Jul 13, 2014 12:09pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jrj906202 wrote:

Still waiting for my health care welfare.Everyone soon to be “entitled”.What a change,from the U.S. glory days when people had personal responsibility.

Jul 14, 2014 11:28am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jrj906202 wrote:

Your own body should be your primary doctor,responsible for curing 99% of your problems.The other 1% is for outside doctors.Not what Obama wants.He wishes for you to be a dependent of his God,govt.

Jul 14, 2014 11:30am EDT  --  Report as abuse
MargaD wrote:

It is not just preventive care for women, prior to and after birth, that are covered by the ACA. Preventative wellness visits are covered at $0 out of pocket for everyone with insurance. This was not the case before the ACA. So, not only will infants benefit, but all of the population will have improved outcomes with illnesses being caught early rather that a patient showing up at the emergency room at deaths door, where extraordinary measures that cost thousands will be used. Annual health screenings find the onset of chronic illnesses and can many times reverse or at least prevent complications. And, yes, we should all take personal responsibility for our own well being, but people get sick, even those that exercise, maintain a good weight, and eat all the right foods. We are exposed to so many pollutants and cancer causing materials just by breathing the air and from the foods the FDA deems safe. Plus some idiot may run you over and injure you severely, which would be out of your control. We are unable to completely control our environments unless we live in a bubble, grow our own food, and never interact with others.

Jul 14, 2014 12:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
bachcole wrote:

As a total system, there will be less benefit because people are being treated as though they were less responsible for their health. Yes, some individuals will be benefit. It is like the lottery. Some people will win, but the message is that your good fortune is a matter of luck rather than hard work and sacrifice. With the ACA, the message is that you are dependent upon someone else, the government, for your health.

Jul 14, 2014 2:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.