Willfully stupid or woefully deceptive? Likely both are factors in the relentless spin of Obamacare, to which this week we add the JAMA "study" of how great Medicaid and similar schemes of providing near free or totally free health insurance AND near free or totally free healthcare indicate that Obamacare, which represents neither, is "working."
Medicaid existed before Obamacare. The Affordable Care Act gave the options to states to expand their programs for near-free cost with the Federal government picking up the bulk of the tab. Similarly, states that "expanded" then could offer Medicaid, a program already in existence to more people in their states who qualified under the expansion. And we're told it works--it gets more people insured and they obtain better healthcare services than being uninsured.
Who would argue with that? That's never been the issue with the scheme developed by Obamacare which for paying Americans is not such a happy story without truth-bending and twisting and fear mongering of how things "could" be worse.
Medicaid works. Hardly a headline. But that is not Obamacare.
Then there's the optional coverage of those up to the age of 26 by their parents. Again, free health insurance for that population, near-free or totally free healthcare (depending on whether parents are also paying money for deductible, copay, coinsurance). No surprise--Free health insurance and free healthcare improve an individual's access to affordable healthcare services. But that is not Obamacare. As with Medicaid, the option for parents to purchase their children's health insurance was already in existence in many states and under many policies BEFORE Obamacare.
So by all means, read the good news in JAMA (you'll have to pay for the article), "Changes in Utilization and Health Among Low-Income Adults After Medicaid Expansion or Expanded Private Insurance," http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2542420, or read JAMA's publicity article by the President himself, http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2533698, but for consumers' sake don't confuse Medicaid or parents paying for their kids' health insurance as Obamacare--that would be willfully stupid or woefully deceptive.
Similarly, enjoy the "good" news that the desperate Obamacare fanboys and fangirls report on the study. For instance, in "The Upshot," in The New York Times, we're treated to, "Obamacare Appears to Be Making People Healthier," by Margot Sanger-Katz, 8/9/2016, which boldly fudges the term "Obamacare" in the headline only to contradict itself and talk about Medicaid, "Low-income people in Arkansas and Kentucky, which expanded Medicaid insurance to everyone below a certain income threshold, appear to be healthier than their peers in Texas, which did not expand." That's Medicaid, not Obamacare.
Same with the LA Times, with Noam N. Levey's article, "Obamacare is helping more poor patients get to the doctor even as political battles continue," 8/8/2016, touting the same study, http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obamacare-medicaid-health-20160805-snap-story.html, and following the formula of misleading terminology of Obamacare in the headline but confessing in the first paragraph, "…new research shows it is dramatically improving poor patients’ access to medical care in states that have used the law to expand their Medicaid safety net."
It's election season, but after six years, equating Obamacare with other schemes of providing people with nearly or totally free health insurance AND nearly free or totally free healthcare, whether it's through Medicaid (not Obamacare) or having someone else purchase your health insurance (not Obamacare) actually is the strongest argument against the mess that is Obamacare which offers neither to the majority of Americans.
