Over at The Apothecary, Chris Conover makes a solid case that the ACA's Medicaid expansion doesn't actually save lives.
Now, we already know that the ACA itself has a body count:
"Mortality Rates ... equivalent to an excess 11,000 annual U.S. adult deaths relative to the pre-Obamacare steady state trends"
But Chris goes even further into the mess; he demonstrates that "the weight of the scientific evidence is that Medicaid expansion has not saved lives." Granted, that's not quite the same thing, but it certainly puts paid to the claim that folks are better off under Medicaid. He does this by looking at how many folks will likely lose coverage under the AHCA/BCRA (and what kind), and then unpacks the actual numbers which the Center for American Progress appears to have, well, misrepresented.
I really suggest reading the whole thing, but this piece is too good not to post:
"[UC San Diego’s Richard Kronick] found no statistically significant difference in the mortality risks faced by people who were uninsured compared to those with private coverage:"
Now, we already know that the ACA itself has a body count:
"Mortality Rates ... equivalent to an excess 11,000 annual U.S. adult deaths relative to the pre-Obamacare steady state trends"
But Chris goes even further into the mess; he demonstrates that "the weight of the scientific evidence is that Medicaid expansion has not saved lives." Granted, that's not quite the same thing, but it certainly puts paid to the claim that folks are better off under Medicaid. He does this by looking at how many folks will likely lose coverage under the AHCA/BCRA (and what kind), and then unpacks the actual numbers which the Center for American Progress appears to have, well, misrepresented.
I really suggest reading the whole thing, but this piece is too good not to post:
"[UC San Diego’s Richard Kronick] found no statistically significant difference in the mortality risks faced by people who were uninsured compared to those with private coverage:"
[click to embiggen]