Has the ACA Medicaid Expansion Been a Success? 

I became eligable for Medicaid with ACA. Then i got eosinophilic asthma and chronic fatigue syndrome. I would literally be dead without the ACA.

I'm in Indiana. When I moved back here I was working a basically minimum wage part time job, averaging less than $200/week. While my daughter qualified for free Medicaid, I was asked to pay. While it was only $17/month, I couldn't swing it and have been without insurance for almost a year now. I now have a good paying full time job, but I'm still waiting for my insurance to kick in.

Behind your left shoulder there is a large prism looking thing next to the mug. It looks like an award of some kind, but I don’t see and inscriptions. What is this thing? Great video, sounds like the ACA has some positive benefit (perhaps not to the extent that most people want) and little to no negative effects. Best wishes!

Great information!!!

I make too much to have medicaid but not enough to live in a one room apartment where I live. I've used medicaid before I got my raise and it seriously helped my family. Now that I don't qualify, I have to pay $700+ a paycheck to have healthcare. So now I really can't afford a one room apartment let alone a shack. :( Washington state is expensive.

This is welcome (if not unexpected) news. Remember to VOTE! Vote for politicians who are willing to support policies that promote public health, including treating drug addiction as a health problem instead of a criminal one.

Thanks to the tiredless efforts of our Republican Governor, Governor Herbert, Utah is finally expanding Medicaid.

Isn't it a bit dishonest to say States were "invited" to expand Medicaid? It wasn't supposed to _be_ an invitation, it was supposed to be a _requirement_ , since it's a Federal program, approved at the Federal level, overseen by the Federal government. It was Kennedy's Supreme Court, with _zero_ precedent, before or after, that ruled the Feds _weren't allowed_ to control _their own program_ , because the fact it was locally administered somehow States were allowed to reject the money. This is preposterous on its face, because no other Federal program works that way, and it clearly wasn't the Obama administration's intent, since the ACA left huge gaps for the uninsured in States that didn't expand Medicaid. Rejecting it to begin with was a way of punishing people. It had nothing to do with the cost. If we're being actually honest, it was rejected by States that didn't want "the wrong people" getting medical treatment.

Why did this vid ignore how the "expansion" is funded or not funded? Rember it is FED MONEY TO START, the IN STATE MONEY OVER TIME. Might it be relevant to also look at the LONG TERM POVERTY this created for the masses?

I'm sure that expanding Medicaid would indeed improve access to healthcare and result in better health outcomes from use. The problem is two-fold: firstly, doing so is incredibly expensive. With the deficit contributing to the national debt each year already, putting more strain on it is unwise until a plan that would address the cost effectively is proposed alongside it. Secondly, healthcare is not a right. You don't have the right to steal food should you be starving, just the same as you do not have a right to healthcare should you be ill. Charity is almost always a better solution than the government stepping in.

Americans, why do people even vote for the American NSDAP? It's 2018? Don't you want new differenciated parties for a change? Even Germany is a democratic country today. Join the free world, America.

Third😝

FIRST

Out of curiosity, who have you voted for in the last five presidential elections?

HEALTH CARE : Europe vs America WHATS IN IT FOR THE GOVERNMENTs and THE PATIENTS and why EUROPE WINS European system costs 11% of GDP against 19% in the USA EU HEALTH CARE IS ALL INCLUDED THE USA NOT & WHY SO COMPLICATED??? USA life expectancy is 42th in the world on the world ratings. WHATS IN IT FOR THE EU PATIENT? If you pay taxes, as an individual, and contribute to the central government “POT” (the community POT of money). You are covered for all treatment, hospital costs, surgery, drugs, implants, chemo, post op therapies, cost of prescribed drugs, specialist and normal GP doctors bills, specialist bills etc etc. (There are some small exceptions.) You dont have to look at the small print of coverage. Its all included, pocket your credit card.. you dont need it. You dont have to pay in advance NO Paperwork The system is rated as better than the American system as nobody is excluded and the system covers 99% of all patient needs. THE EUROPEAN SYSTEM: HOW IT WORKS: All european health systems are government run and are simple systems . It is a central, run by the govenment covering all healthcare needs for the population and is non profit , universal, and also internationally recognised between all EU countries. The EU underlying system is through fiscal residency of a person, (ie you pay into the employment tax system of the country you live and into health system, if you are registered or unemployed you are covered) Simply put, each person pays into the THE GOVENMENT POT as a % of individual pay packet contributions where you are employed Importantly even if you are unemployed, but registered, you control illegal immigration. Illegals get no benefits, unless humanitarian emergency. Importantly you are still covered. you as a patient get equal rights and coverage across Europe. The EU system is state run, and covers everyone, from birth to death and costs half of the USA system. Therefore in the USA a % of the health cost is based on profit to be paid out in dividends. Additionallly not all people in the USA are covered, (approximately 15%) Its a Bum deal for Americans. It costs 8-9% of GDP more than Europe HOW IT IS MANAGED: In America USA, the health system is profit run for the most part and privately handled. Patient care is secondary to profit for 50% of coverage. The European state (country) is the employer of all health staff, doctors, nurses, etc. Central government then covers the hospitals costs through a system which keeps the hospitals covered for the expenses of each patient. If we compare the EU to the USA structure in terms of cost to GDP, Europe average 11% of GDP to the USA 20% of GDP, (2019) with the EU at 99% coverage and with improved life expectancy rate, compared to the USA. Central Government in each country collects the money through the taxes you pay as a citizen, and redistributes it (generally) to regions ,hospitals, and doctors etc which then distributes the funds to the health system used by the patient. The Government also allows the private sector to operate under the public system, to build hospitals, run them privately. Each country allows this in different rules, like Germany/UK/France etc. They are then licence them to operate by the government. But importantly, the patient who pays to the state contributions through his salary, has equal rights to access all hospitals. 10-15 % of the EU health system is private If you wish to pay an additional supplement to the state system, you are allowed to do this into to the private scheme on top of your mandatory state payments so you get private health care coverage. But you cannot opt out of the central system or add to it. Most of people dont have the means or desire to pay private insurance policies. So the state system is better for them. WHATS THE BENEFIT Basically the EU system covers 99% of people and costs the half of the USA system. In addition to this, with the EU system, if you pay contributions to the health system in the UK or France, you can have full medical care in other countries , Germany, Italy, Hungary or any other of the 27 states etc. If you lose your job, you will still be covered. you just pay less to the system as unemployment reimbusement to you is less, so you pay less, but the more you earn at work, the more you contribute to the central system. Its based on % of earnings. These European systems are based on the old and original UK system, The National Health Service, abbreviated to NHS, was launched by the then Minister of Health in Attlee's post-war government, Aneurin Bevan, at the Park Hospital in Manchester. Aneurin Bevan, Minister of Health, on the first day of the National Health Service, 5 July 1948 at Park Hospital, Davyhulme, near Manchester. THE REAL ISSUE 1. EU Health is non political, non profit, more efficient and cheaper that the USA system, 2. BETTER in many ways, as the patient is first, and health has no “profit COST”. 3. It reduces the cost to the Government. (11% against the USA 20% per year GDP) 4. Its not fragmented. Its coverage is national, and for all. 5. If you are REGISTERED as a TAX payer, you have no problems. 6. If you are clandestine, then you get some emergency humanitarian services only. Thus the authorities know who you are and send you home after. Thanks for the comments!!!!

No. Success would be cheaper healthcare, not "more access to care" or "more insurance." Pushing government more into the equation is a failure to anyone capable of understanding that healthcare is a service like any other. You don't rate oil changes based on who gets them or how many people have it covered on their insurance. You rate it on quality. Want to point to quality going up? That's a fair point. But by the logic used here, who's to say where quality would be without it and leaving money in the hands of taxpayers instead?