MY SUBJURIES  -  HOME  -  Hot or Not  -  Rate Your Games  -  Funny Or Not  -  Panjury's Number One News Source  -  Moral Compass  -  Movie Review  -  Overwatch Fan Review  -  Smartest people on earth.  -  Love Of Food  -  NBA Greatest of All Time  - 
More

Barack Obama

"obamacare didn't save lives"

36

Shunned

by 228 Jurors

Barack Hussein Obama II is an American politician who served as the 44th President of the United States from 2009 to 2017. Obama is a member of the Democratic Party, and was the first person of African American descent to serve as president. Born in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was president of the Harvard Law Review. He was a community organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree. He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. He served three terms representing the 13th District in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004, running unsuccessfully for the United States House of Representatives in 2000. [1]

Slide me!

150 characters remaining.

(?)
OR

 

img Sohail Ahmed posted a review

THE MISLEADING NARRATIVE: Obamacare needs to stay in place! It literally saves people’s lives, and because of that, we should be willing to pay higher taxes and insurance premiums.

THE REALITY: Obamacare, on the whole, did NOT save lives.

This is merely an appeal to emotion, and it’s largely untrue. Proponents of the ACA commonly cite two estimates; Rep. Bill Pascrell of NJ claimed that 22,000 Americans die each year due to lack of health insurance and former Senator Harry Reid of Nevada claimed that the number was much higher – 45,000 a year. [a]

Before we examine the research, we need to note a fundamental fact: the vast majority of newly covered people under the ACA did NOT actually purchase insurance. Rather, they were simply rolled onto Medicaid. Out of 20 million people newly insured, estimates are that 14.5 million were put on Medicaid/CHIP. [b] This has significant implications for examining the “Obamacare saved lives” narrative, as Medicaid expansion was one of the ACA’s core components.

Studies show that mortality rates and other health outcomes are not necessarily positively affected by Medicaid, and in fact, are sometimes negatively impacted. Research shows the following:

• Studies linking positive health benefits to PRIVATE health insurance certainly exist, but since Obamacare is largely just an expansion of Medicaid/CHIP, such studies shouldn't be cited to bolster Obamacare's credibility. In addition, where studies do find that Medicaid has a positive effect, it is for pregnant women and young children — groups whose coverage was NOT expanded by the ACA. [c] Again, the results, even when positive, aren't causally connected to Obamacare.

• Several studies failed to conclude that Medicaid improved health outcomes. [c] For instance, an opportunity for a natural experiment arose in Oregon when the state had limited funds for Medicaid so it instituted a lottery whereby some applicants were randomly gifted medicaid and others were randomly denied. This created a control group to test the health outcomes of two similarly characterized groups of people. The study found nearly no direct improvement to health as a result of Medicaid. Interestingly, what it found was mostly just that Medicaid acted as a financial crutch easing the burden of expenses. [e] If one wishes to argue that giving benefits to poorer individuals saves them money, that should be obvious, but it doesn't appear to "save lives." It's important to note here that there IS one popularly cited paper published by Harvard University researchers in the New England Journal of Medicine [g] which looked for improvements in mortality when several states expanded Medicaid in the 2000s. Many cite this study as evidence that access to Medicaid lowered mortality rates, but it actually showed, at best, mixed results. First, it only studied 3 states. Second, their results essentially cancelled each other out. New York showed a statistically significant reduction in deaths, Arizona showed a statistically insignificant reduction (meaning they couldn't establish that it was anything more than random chance), and Maine showed a statistically insignificant increase. This is one of their strongest arguments, and yet, it's extremely weak. [c]

• A claim that the ACA saves large numbers of lives should be supported by statistically significant evidence showing decreasing mortality rates; yet the opposite occurred. Per CDC data, the rates of age-adjusted mortality and life expectancy had fallen every year since 1993. However, in 2015, the mortality rate increased from 725 per 100,000 to 733 per 100,000. This means that 30,000 MORE deaths occurred in 2015 than if the mortality rate had remained at 2014 levels. To be fair, it is important to note that this statistic, while correlated with the timeframe when the ACA started, does not establish that the ACA was the whole or even part of the cause of increased mortality. What it DOES show, however, is that the ACA did NOT save lives, as claimed by its proponents. [c]

Additionally, claims of people dying due to lack of insurance were called into question by the healthcare researcher Richard Kronick. [d] Kronick examined existing data and found no difference in mortality between those with employer-sponsored insurance and those who were uninsured. To be clear, this isn't to suggest that medical care doesn't usually improve one's life, but it IS to suggest that - in this country - people aren't generally left to die from a treatable disease or injury. Care might be expensive, it may be difficult to attain if you weren't responsible enough to maintain insurance before becoming ill and thus avoid the pitfall of a "pre-existing condition," it may even put you into temporary debt, just as anything else valuable in this world, but you wouldn't be left to rot and die. As Kronick states: “It is not possible to draw firm causal inferences from the results of observational analyses, but there is little evidence to suggest that extending insurance coverage to all adults would have a large effect on the number of deaths in the United States.” It’s important to note at this stage that Kronick is an academic and former Clinton administration official. At the time the ACA was passed, Kronick was serving in the Obama administration as deputy assistant secretary of HHS. [a] And he's not the only one who acknowledges this. Even the far left publication "Mother Jones," in an article otherwise supporting Obamacare, started their argument with the following firm acknowledgement:

"People in the US don't die much before age 65, so health insurance for working-age folks has never been likely to have much effect on death rates. Below age 55, it's even less likely: the death rate is so minuscule that it would take a miracle to invent ANY kind of health-related practice that had a measurable effect on life expectancy." [f]

This is, of course, the end of their critique, as the rest of their article was strongly in favor of the ACA. In the interests of full disclosure, note that their article argued mortality rates shouldn't be used to judge Obamacare, since healthcare is more about improving life than it is about preventing death. That's a point people should be perfectly willingly to accept, but if that's the goal, then supporters of Obamacare shouldn't routinely imply that opponents of the ACA are essentially killing people.

In summary, it's expected that many will take issue with the above research, as healthcare is a highly debated issue. ACA proponents are often able to cite anecdotal evidence and name a few individuals whose lives might have been greatly improved by Obamacare, but let us remember; anecdotes do not override the aggregated data, they exist within it. Political policies should not be judged by their intentions but instead by their RESULTS. As the results show, the ACA does not, on the net, save lives.
----------------------------
SOURCES:
[a]

1 week ago
img

img Dev Achmed posted a review

THE REALITY: As we'll demonstrate, this narrative comes merely as a failure to fact-check and relies heavily on misleading anecdotes.

This controversy arose from the AHCA's option for individual states to seek waivers and opt out of certain Obamacare provisions. Among them was the ability, under limited circumstances, to charge higher premiums to some customers based on their medical history. States which utilize this federal waiver would be required to set up high-risk insurance pools, however, helping to mitigate the cost for those who would otherwise be unable to afford healthcare. One can debate how effective these high risk pools would be, but the fact is, those with preexisting conditions would NOT be "denied" coverage, despite the popular narrative.

Even if preexisting conditions were not protected by repeal, 44 states ALREADY have laws which prohibit health insurers from treating rape, any other form of sexual abuse, or any form of domestic violence, as a preexisting condition. This was apparently not the case before 1980, but as of 2014, this prohibition is the law in 44 states. [a] Some might muse that the other 6 states might allow sexual or domestic violence to be treated as a pre-existing condition since they don't have laws prohibiting it, but again, the facts show this to be a non-existent worry. A 2009 Politifact investigation turned up NO evidence that such practices were occurring. As their report noted, "Just because it's legal in some states [...] doesn't mean that insurance companies are actually taking advantage of the loophole." [b] In other words, it is true that some states allowed the practice, but there was no evidence that insurers implemented it. Furthermore, the Americans Health Insurance Plans organization, a
health insurer trade association, said "of course survivors of domestic abuse and rape should be covered." [c] AHIP's spokeswoman Kristine Grow also noted that the insurance industry generally follows the guidelines laid out by the National Association of Insurance Companies, which includes recommendations against denying coverage to abuse and assault victims. [a]

How then, did this narrative get started? The media has relied on a few anecdotes:

• One from CNN, for instance, centers on a woman who, having been a victim of domestic violence, had her insurance application rejected. The insurance company did not provide a reason, nor are they required to, but the woman believed that it was due to her history of domestic abuse. However, there was never any evidence to prove that assumption, and the woman was able to obtain insurance shortly thereafter from a different provider.

• The second story centers around a woman who was sexually assaulted and was then prescribed anti-HIV medication as a precaution. When she applied for a health insurance policy, she was turned down. The reason? The insurance company had a policy of refusing coverage to anyone who had been on HIV medication recently. They did NOT decline her because she was a rape victim, however, as they were not even aware of that information initially (the woman said she informed them of it later on). It's perfectly legitimate to say that the company should have made an exception to their HIV medication policy for this woman, but THAT'S the issue which should be discussed, not the misleading narrative that she was supposedly denied coverage due to sexual assault.

Plenty of complaints can be had with the proposed repeal of the ACA, but the allegation that it would make sexual or domestic abuse a pre-existing condition is simply not true. Media outlets need to do a better job with their fact checking.
---------------------
SOURCES:
[a]

2 weeks ago
img

img Sohail Ahmed posted a review

However, the costs of this rule are considerable and are borne by all workers. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, "workers at firms with employer-based coverage – whether or not they have dependent children – experience an annual reduction in wages of approximately $1,200" as a result of this rule.

That means that all workers (including those without children) are experiencing a substantial decline in wages in order to pay for this provision which benefits some people.

Source: http://www.nber.org/papers/w21846

2 weeks ago
img

img Ian Da Silva posted a review

The Affordable Care Act. To begin with, it never gave anyone healthcare but health-insurance. This is an important distinction because supporters of the law generally don’t like “evil” health insurance companies. The reality is this law forces everyone to purchase insurance from these companies. It’s nothing like the healthcare system you see in Canada or Europe.

Democrats are so compassionate, that they had the IRS fine and target (poor) people who couldn't afford health insurance. Two years ago I had to pay this fine while I was in between jobs.

Some other facts that Democrats like to forget.

*The Affordable Care Act has caused millions of people to lose their doctors, despite the President’s promise.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/04/doctors-begin-to-refuse-obamacare-patients/)
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2014/03/14/obama-sorry-no-you-cant-necessarily-keep-your-doctor-n1809112)
http://swampland.time.com/2013/11/19/you-can-keep-your-doctor-obamacares-next-broken-promise/)

*The Affordable Care Act has caused millions of people to lose their current health insurance. You could argue this was by design to push more people through this crony-capitalism insurance exchange.
http://www.politifact.com/obama-like-health-care-keep/)
http://www.businessinsider.com/at-least-35-million-americans-have-now-had-their-health-insurance-policies-canceled-thanks-to-obamacare-2013-11)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/millions-americans-are-losing-their-health-plans-because-obamacare_764602.html)(http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2014/04/04/obamacare-shows-america-suffers-from-a-president-dangerously-disconnected-from-reality/)

*The Affordable Care Act has raised the price of insurance and premiums for millions of people. Obama allowed businesses to be exempt from the law until 2015(after congressional election) as well as gave waivers to his politically connected friends.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/214847-average-premium-under-obamacare-to-rise-75-percent)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/14/obamacare-website-wont-reveal-insurance-costs-for-/?page=all)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/11/04/49-state-analysis-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-premiums-by-avg-of-41-subsidies-flow-to-elderly/)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/obamacare-premiums-2015_n_5691773.html) http://reason.com/blog/2013/10/01/who-gets-an-exemption-from-obamacare)

3 weeks ago
img

img Jawad Khan posted a review

That Assad is not the real danger but Erdogan? That they knew from the first moment that they have been fueling the Islamist armed groups who have destroyed Syria. Hypocrites. Cowards. History will judge them for their hypocrisy.

on April 26, 2017
img

img Frank Zetta posted a review

They've spent the last month quietly recuperating in French Polynesia since leaving the White House earlier this year.

But Barack and Michelle Obama interrupted the quiet island life they've become accustomed to this weekend with a star-studded jaunt out to sea. 

The former First Couple joined Bruce Springsteen Tom Hanks and their wives on music mogul David Geffen's superyacht Rising Sun on Friday, making quite the splash as they arrived at the vessel off the island of Mo'orea in a spruced up speedboat.



Once on board, the Obama's played tourists, posing romantically on the upper deck while they had their photograph taken.  

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4416814/Barack-Michelle-Obama-pose-superyacht-Tahiti.html#ixzz4eSqPGxrH

on April 17, 2017
img

img Dan Ficke posted a review

Two weeks ago, Susan Rice, former National Security Adviser under President Obama, was asked in an interview about allegations that Trump officials may have been swept up in surveillance of foreign people. Her answer:

"I know nothing about this."

Now today comes word that multiple news organizations have confirmed that not only did Ms. Rice know about it, she was the one to repeatedly unmask the names of Trump associates in the surveillance reports. What's emerging is a picture of an Obama administration that used all the legal surveillance apparatuses of the state to essentially commit political espionage.

2011: President Obama begins loosening the rules regarding "incidental intercepts" to make it easier for the US Government to spy on individuals who are not the primary target(s) of a surveillance operation by unmasking their names in the surveillance transcripts. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like "U.S. Person One."

2016: The unmasking began when Trump became the GOP nominee and accelerated through the remainder of the Obama presidency, and had nothing to do with the Trump/Russia investigations. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration, but nothing meriting national security attention. The reports were nonetheless disseminated to a core group of Obama officials.

2017: Obama administration expands an executive order to allow the NSA to share “raw signals intelligence information” with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections. Leaks of politically damaging information on Trump and his team grow in size and scope.

If you're a Democrat reading this and thinking "but nothing illegal occurred!" perhaps you'll change your tune when you realize that this same power to legally peruse legally gathered surveillance and legally unmask the names of political opponents and legally disseminate that information throughout the government and leak the information to the press to hurt political opponents is now in the hands of Donald J. Trump and his administration.

on April 6, 2017
img

img Yuri Michael posted a review

THE MISLEADING IMPLICATION: "20 million people gained healthcare due to Obamacare. This confirms that Obamacare was successfully addressing the underlying problems within the healthcare market."

THE REALITY: The majority of these people were simply placed on an expanded version of Medicaid, meaning, rather than addressing the issues plaguing the dysfunctional healthcare market, Obamacare did little to improve markets and simply pushed people into government-run healthcare, paid by taxpayers.

People keep touting, as though it were some sort of success story, that "more people have health insurance today due to Obamacare." This particular talking point seems astonishingly absurd, however, since Obamacare contained within it a MANDATE that FORCED people to get health insurance. Of course, if you put a gun to someone's head and tell them to buy something, they're more likely to buy it. This is akin to passing a law requiring everybody to buy one additional pair of shoes, then proclaiming yourself a business genius because you saw shoe sales increase. If sales didn't increase because the product became more affordable or more desirable, however, it should be obvious that you didn't actually "fix" anything.

Let's take a look at the numbers:

• A 2015 estimate showed that, of the 20 million newly insured people, 14.5 million were put on Medicaid and CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program). [a]

• Of this 14.5 million placed on tax-payer financed health insurance, about 3.4 million were previously eligible before Obamacare [b], but hadn't enrolled because they didn't need it. That means tax payers are paying the health insurance costs of 3.4 million people who knew they didn't actually need it but were forced to accept the hand-out anyways since Obamacare mandates they have insurance.

• Additionally, of the 20 million, 2.3 million were simply young adults (aged 19 to 25) who gained coverage between 2010 and 2013 as a result of Obamacare's provision which said they got to stay on their parent's insurance until they were 26. [c] People 19-25 rarely require extensive healthcare, however, which is why they rarely choose to buy it themselves. So while letting them stay on their parent's insurance may have been helpful in a handful of circumstances, it was mostly "fixing" a problem which did not exist. Matter of fact, the reason the ACA wanted younger people insured was precisely BECAUSE they don't get sick enough to cost money, and thus represent income for health insurance providers rather than costs.

• Lastly, in 2016, the numbers didn't look much better. Preliminary data indicated that net total enrollment increased by "2,535,020 individuals in the first three-quarters of 2016." [d] But of that 2.5 million increase, the net increase in PRIVATE (market) insurance was actually only "490,211 individuals." Again, Medicaid accounted for "81 percent of the incremental growth in enrollment in 2016." [d]

Thus, roughly 81% of the newly insured people in 2016 were simply given free insurance which everyone else funded. How is that a success? A successful reform would have seen people affording their own private health insurance - when and only IF they wanted it - because the product would have gotten better, cheaper, or both. Instead, since that wasn't accomplished, Obamacare simply pushed people into government-run insurance to pretend it had "solved" the problem. It was called "The AFFORDABLE Care Act," but a more appropriate name would have been "The Forced Welfare Expansion Act."
----------------------
Sources:
[a]

on April 1, 2017
img
Show more

Want more opinions on Barack Obama? Request a verdict!

You can optionally ask questions in your request for the community to answer.
This entry currently has: 0 request.

 

Rating Trend

 
 

You may also be interested in

Connected Subjects

Tags

Add tags

Barack Obama

obamacare didn't save lives
Book rating: 36.7 out of 100 with 228 ratings