second, this article you cited is a farce. the uk is roughly 1/38 the size of the US in land mass and our population is roughly five times that of the UK. this is just another example of partisans pulling out facts that make no sense to use as a comparison because guys like you take it and run with it like a dog with a terd who thinks it has a bone.
You missed the point. The point is how many people on Medicaid. Which now grew under obamacare. The countries are meaningless, but please latch onto nothing. I have been 100% clear of my purpose. The point was to make healthcare affordable. Dumping more on subsidies does not achieve that. We need more people paying. More new people paying full price. You already quoted 50% went to Medicaid. We all know that is a subsidy.
Where is that data and what is the total amount. To claim 90%, I'd like to see more than a survey that could be 33% wrong. 90% could mean anything.
look, I've already provided that data; it was in the RAND study. your obsession with the margin of error in the poll tells me that you have nothing else.
Here is the simple question. Of the 9 million, how many are not subsidized? I haven't found valuable information on that. It is likely months away.
Lol a 33% margin of error is a lot. Further, the rand doesn't make a distinction between non subsidized applicants. Which is the point I am after.
The idea is that huge costs will be saved by eliminating free emergency-room care that was passed on to paying customers. Huge costs will be saved by eliminating charity hospitals and free county clinics that will no longer be needed, relieving taxpayers of this burden. Many expenses would be saved by free-market competition between hospitals and providers for this new business. Finally much of the waste that exists in large federal programs like Medicare and medicaid would be reduced by smaller, more cost-conscious and competitive private providers.
But how does that trim costs when you still go to the ER on Medicaid or are subsidized? Won't having effective care make you more inclined to go?
Emergencies are still emergencies. But the problem is that the uninsured go to the emergency room for non-emergency care. Emergency rooms are very expensive and critical for real emergencies. Not only would much money be saved by covered people going to regular doctors offices and clinics for routine care, but with coverage they might go sooner and more often which can prevent small, fixable health problems from turning into large, expensive health problems.
Most data I've read and many ER docs I speak with tell me 2 things. 1) Medicare doesn't reduce ER visits in fact it increases them. Why because there aren't enough doctors to go around. Most people getting subsidies live in doctor "deserts". Many go there because that is all they have. 2) doctors are limiting their practice to Medicarebecause it is cumbersome and the pYment is too little and takes too long. That won't change the metrics of the present system. Red you mentioned earlier costs would go down with open competition. I agree. Our main difference is you seem to think the AHCA wil encourage that I don't. As I see it the act adds cost, is cumbersome and doesn't address the real issues of providing better health care more efficiently and thereby reducing the per health care action cost.
