new study says 43K+ will die without affordable healthcare

Post Reply New Topic

(clicky)repealing PPACA without equivalent replacement plan will kill over 43,000 AMERICANS annually
The story is in the data: The biggest and most definitive study of what happens to death rates when Medicaid coverage is expanded, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that for every 455 people who gained coverage across several states, one life was saved per year. Applying that figure to even a conservative estimate of 20 million losing coverage in the event of an ACA repeal yields an estimate of 43,956 deaths annually.
lyin' ryan's plan of a $2700 tax credit [NOT a subsidy] [means-tested, to boot] will not even come close to paying the full insurance premiums of a typical middle-aged person in a catastrophic insurance plan. hunger games, here we come.

Time for the horseman of pestilence to get ready to ride.

and since public health likely will take a financial hit as well [gotta pay for welfare for the rich somehow], it is not inconceivable that some places could have epidemics from diseases that normally would have been treated.

Antibiotics are failing because bacteria is becoming resistant and risks making nonresistant bacteria resistant. All that effort bringing cancer rates down will be undone.

treating just the symptoms rather than actually preventing/curing disease, is the #2 flaw of American medical practice, the #1 flaw being putting mammon over medicine.

I'm hoping ACA gets replaced with something better, and not something worse. I have friends in the US who are dependent on affordable access to healthcare.

It's not looking good. Republicans have been repeating the mantra of "repeal and replace" since the ACA was passed in 2010 and they still haven't offered their replacement. Republicans in Congress don't seem to care if people will die. Their hatred of Obama seems to supersede that.

Ah yes, the demon god of greed. The real god those christian-in-name-only RepubliCONS really worship.

^^^^
[can't remember who said this one]- "their real god is money, jesus just drives the armored car and his hat is made in china."
"They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good." -- Titus 1:16
“Satan is wiser now than before, and tempts by making rich instead of poor” — Alexander Pope

I think ACA is flawed and it would've been better if it were an opt-in thing, but it's better than nothing.

unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that without the stick there can be no adequate financing of the carrot. one way or the other, to a variable extent, everybody's skin must be in the game [via general taxation and mandatory participation], just as it is in any other nation with pretenses towards extending care to the working poor.

I think Trump is anti-vaccine.

at least for the disposable "useless eater" working class.

i don't think bacteria play such a big role in cancer, unless those statements are meant to be considered totally separately.

antagonistic pleiotropy can help explain why populations of antibiotic resistant bacteria can "regress" back into vulnerable strains when antibiotics are taken out of the equation. if a population has genes that give it antibiotic resistance, but as a tradeoff is unreceptive to other compounds it may need, the benefits gained from the antibiotic resistance outweigh the cons it gets from being unreceptive to the compounds (say, sucrose). if antibiotics are removed from the equation, the resistance may become redundant and then the other effect of that gene can be able to harm it. assuming that resistance happens in derived populations, we can see that the ancestral populations can actually be more "fit" if they are unresistant, but lack the "sucrose unreceptiveness" gene in an environment without antibiotics.

(tangent, sorry)

this isn't to say we should stop using antibiotics altogether, but maybe we could change our approach when it comes to them.

and not ask for them when you have viral infections!



even though we can see the legislation to repeal the ACA is being drafted, now, i have hope that it will be replaced around the same time. a full repeal would take a long time to work through all the channels. (but i think they're turning to cutting funding instead).

If they're going to make it a mandatory thing for people to have health insurance, they should at least make it so that the government option is affordable enough that people don't have a reason to avoid it. There are people who don't even have ACA coverage because they can't afford the up-front costs, and it just goes to show that they went about implementing it the wrong way.

The Republicans conspire to make things worse by cutting funding for subsidies that would make the ACA affordable for those on the lower end. That's how they operate. Make a government program not work, then go and tell the public "look this government program isn't working, lets get rid of it". It's a scam.