Lied to Democrats,
Your wrong. First, Medicaid already covered 15 million or more poor people in the states they lived in. Obamacare just sent a piece of paper to them congratulating them on their (new) Medicaid coverage they were already technically covered under.
The other 5 million you mentioned were over the poverty line or working poor. The bar was raised on qualifications to allow about two or two and a half million more onto Medicaid. Nothing was changed on the policies to cover testing that wasn't covered before or specialized care. That leaves a couple of million.
Because of policy changes in coverage those two million could be covered under the law on insurance premiums that were adjusted in the exchange. Making the coverage affordable for them - in part. At lower level policy coverages. The policies were guaranteed in the exchanges. The care you get depends on the policy.
Cheap inadequate care replacing criteria:
This is where the major problem begins. Changes were made in the law so that your treatment was based on policy coverage not standard care. So, in reality, when you received care, (which was not universal care) you got what you paid for, not what the standard of care would be for all under criteria. If you don't know what criteria is - please read about criteria.
The government, not doctors, the government under this system could order certain treatments not covered or certain testing by state, such as in state Medicare or Medicaid programs. *Medicaid could be required to cover testing that was unnecessary whether the doctors ordered it or not.
See this: V.A. Administration ordering the same tests over and over and over on a heart patient with heart disease that was dying from the failure of his heart. The tests did not determine the condition of his heart. No other testing was done until he was dying in the emergency room of a hospital. Not a VA hospital. OBAMACARE - This is an example of Obamacare.
And yet, the government could order such tests for every Medicaid patient in every state. Even if the tests were completely unnecessary and so expensive that it literally bankrupted the states! That's Obamacare. With their buddies raking in billions (BILLIONS) from the mandates, how long do you think it would be before the corruption set in? And testing was ordered over and over because money was conned out of the system at the expense of the patients. SEE THIS: Veterans Administration. As an example. [ If your not familure, read up on it.]
Intially, the government gave money to states but after a period of time the states were required to cover each patient eligible for Medicaid on federal standards with respect to income. That means the government could also raise the bar as high as it wanted. Your state would be required to pay Medicaid costs and mandate costs (unnecessary testing and procedures) without assistance from the government. Literally, your state could wind up paying for 80% of all patients in your state under Medicaid. "Should I go on?"
Socialized Medicine An Objective
So, in fact no real changes were made in Medicaid except for administrative powers and controls that were from tactics inspired by dictatorship into complete failure resulting in a necessity for SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, which was the true objective. (Can you see the plot unfolding now?) Lay the foundation, lie to people, give false hope, and systematically cause the collapse of the system while instituting socialized medicine as a fix to the problems caused by the government under Obamacare.
Ultimately, Obamacare was a socialist trick to destroy the medical system we knew in America and replace it with socialized medicine.
Democrats even went as far as to protect socialist oil production and favor their interests in the American market over American oil production and capabilities. To ensure that Canada's system looked better than it was by helping the Canadian government to meet financial goals in their socialist system by selling more socialist oil in America and letting the Canadians pump oil sand oil through our nation to ports. So, what's all the concern for their socialist oil in America about? Making socialized medicine look better, while they continually interfere with any real progress in maintaining and improving the American system. Having a system like Canada's was the ultimate objective of Obamacare and the Democrats. Biden was especially fond of the Canadian system, in case you hadn't noticed.
No real improvements were made for the care of poor people under Obamacare. Research and judge for yourself.
That brings us to my favorite subject and Rand's concern on the topic of COST TRANSFERENCE. I don't know who initially coined the phrase but I think I might have decades ago when I first started studying how the system actually works. *If you are not familiar with cost transference, please read up on the cost transference studies.
Cost transference affects insurance costs. In a negative way. Why? (That's a good question.) After a few months or years of study and research you might have an answer. My answer involved making a determination on the relationship between cost and facility.
When you cover costs by transferring some of the costs onto other services - the ultimate costs of those services makes a difference in the end result. When more cost is transferred the cost of the insurance premiums goes up. Ultimately. But there is also a reverse effect because it costs way more in one place to provide care in a particular procedure that it does in another place, depending on the facility. In an EMERGENCY ROOM for example. To check somebody for one thing in the ER might cost five times as much as in a normal doctors office.
This results in more and more costs incurred that are in turn covered by transference. Obamacare did nothing to actually address the issue. In fact the exchanges were based on the idea of cost sharing in the insurance exchanges, which is basically, in financial terms, the same as affecting things financially with cost transference.
Also, cutting back on Peter to give better care to Paul might be OK if your Paul and the government could claim that it was being fair but really..... Cutting operations on heart patients to save money on non life threatening care procedures just to make Obamacare look better? Is that really better care. More fair. Consideration for those who are actually in need of care?
Is Obamacare Actually Fair?
Remember what I said about the Veterans Administration care? Inadequate, and then after you wind up in the hospital, (in my case dying) then Obamacare cuts back on the procedures that I need in order to live? You think that is fair? That's better than standard care that would have caught my heart palpitations in the first place and guaranteed that I got the same care in the hospital as anyone else having the same heart surgery?
In a system of criteria, before Obamacare, that wouldn't have happened. In case you didn't know that. I worked in patient care, checking criteria on each case, so I know what I'm talking about.
The amount of money spent in criteria and standard care is well spent with respect to the recovery times and preventative care resulting in cost savings. Obamacare destroyed that system. The rights of quality care people had under that system was not based specifically on policy coverage or modified as a discount type coverage. Keep that in mind. When your dying from neglect of care and your life depends on it - criteria is necessary. Obamacare isn't. Obamacare at that point become a killer, not a life saver.
In real terms of rights and patient protections, that point alone should have been the reason Obamacare would not legally, or Constitutionally, be implemented.
Insurance dictation is another matter. But if your not convinced that Obamacare should have never been in the first place, your just a Democrat that has been lied to, too many times and believed the lies too many times. Obamacare was ill conceived, a flim- flam waiting to happen, a disaster in progress.
There is better care than Obamacare.