The argument against extending Medicaid in Maine and other states under the Affordable Care Act has largely centered on money and state’s rights. What has not been discussed until recently is that the expansion could save lives.
A study by Harvard researchers, published Wednesday by The New England Journal of Medicine, found that when more poor people had health insurance, fewer people died. Part of the research was conducted in Maine. If that doesn’t add another good reason to the argument about why the state should cover more vulnerable populations, we’re not sure what does.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the president’s health care law gave states the flexibility to decide themselves whether to expand Medicaid. The expansion of the program is a major part of how the health care overhaul plans to extend coverage to about 30 million uninsured people.
Gov. Paul LePage said a final decision about whether to expand Medicaid in Maine will be made after November elections, but he has spoken harshly against the law and the expansion.
And his administration is continuing to argue in favor of making $10 million in Medicaid cuts that Republican legislators approved in May. That’s the case even though the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said states may not scale back their existing Medicaid services.
It would be wise for the administration to move beyond political preference and make a decision based on data. The study by Harvard’s School of Public Health analyzed data from New York, Arizona and Maine, all of which expanded their Medicaid programs within the last decade to cover people not normally eligible: low-income adults without children or disabilities.
The study collected the mortality rates of the three states from both the five years before and after the Medicaid expansions and compared them to those in four neighboring states — Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Mexico and New Hampshire — that had not had expansions.
The study adjusted for population growth and found that the number of deaths for people age 20 to 64 decreased in the three states by about 1,500 per year. It estimated the Medicaid expansions were associated with one life saved for every 176 new people who got coverage. Mortality reductions were greatest among older adults, nonwhites and residents of poorer counties.
The report concluded, “State Medicaid expansions to cover low-income adults were significantly associated with reduced mortality as well as improved coverage, access to care, and self-reported health.”
Any study has limitations, including this one. The figures are county-level statistics, not individual deaths. And it’s hard to know whether the same results could be applied to each state. But another study in Oregon so far shows similar results: Medicaid recipients report better health and see doctors more often.
There are many reasons to support the federal health care law: It insures those with pre-existing conditions, eliminates lifetime dollar limits on benefits, provides more free preventive services, re-aligns the spending of health insurance companies to focus more on patient care and provides a clearinghouse of health insurance plans, so people can pick the best one for them.
The law is projected to shrink the federal deficit, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. (Repealing the law would increase the deficit $109 billion from 2013 to 2022).
It could also save thousands of lives. Isn’t that worth fighting for?
Rather naive to argue that Obamacare will save lives, especially after the death panels get fired up and swing into action. About as naive as saying that Obamacare will shrink the federal deficit! Ha! Next thing BDN will try and have us believe that Angus King is truly an independent in his politics!! Good one!
So what do you have for research that would indicate that expanding medicare wouldn’t save lives or that Obamacare will not shrink the federal deficit other than the fact that you say so?
Common Sense – The Government does not do anything, not a single thing, faster better or cheaper than the private sector.
That’s the claim made by the PR people who spread propaganda for the big corporations that are hoping to shrink the US government until it fits inside their wallets.
God willing we have less government. Medicare is deep in the red…what type of entity runs it? SS, essentially bankrupt….who runs that? I could keep going.
Social Security is owed the bulk of the National Debt! Pay back the money and it is sitting pretty. Why do you think the Repubs want to tear SS apart? So they don’t have to pay it back.
Where on earth did you find that republicans want to tear social security apart?
They want to profitize SS which in essence would tear it apart
The evidence has been everywhere, for decades.
Like Roswell…
Heard of ‘Starve the Beast’, the Rebublican plan for SS and Medicare.
I have. But social security is its own tax and republicans have never cut that tax but Barrack Obama has, twice!
Sorry, more misinformation…. the tax cuts were from the general fund and were immensely helpful to the middle and lower class who spent it and and therefore helped the economy at least 3 fold for each dollar.
Bush tried to “privatize” social security, but Republican and Democrats in congress killed the idea. Good thing, because the great war-engineered recession would have wiped out our savings. But, some bank CEO’s would have done well.
You are listening to LIES that you hear on FAKE-News and from the likes of the drug addict certifiable LIAR and college dropout Rush Limpmind. Medicare is NOT deep in the red, nor is Social Security. Both programs are entirely solvent for years to come. Where are you getting this nonsense? Yes, in time, a number of years down the road, enough income to keep both programs to 100% solvency will begin to decline given that people are living longer and the population is increasing. How can we solve that? Easy. End the policy that allows SS deducations on only the first $110,000 of income, modestly for those making up to $250,000 and then a bit moreso for those who make above that. Simple as that. Do that, and we can easily extend that program out for another 75 to 100 years at least beyond the next 20 or so years for which at this time it is completely solvent. Same with Medicare. But, heaven forbid the TeaRadicals would want to do that. Then their corporate masters wouldn’t be able to buy another three mansions, they would have to settle for just two more, nor would they be able to put just that much more of their money in Swiss bank accounts or in their accounts in the Cayman Islands like Mittens ROBme does.
Social security is solvent for now but will not remain that way unless changes are made. Medicare is broke. How do you like paying all of the health care expenses of the wealthiest Americans via a tax on your earned income? Because that is exactly what medicare does, pays all of the health care expenses of all over age 65 regardless of their personal wealth. Millionaires, billionaires, you name it, we pay with a tax on our earned income and they get medical care for nothing, nada, zero zip.
That makes me so mad! I’m sick of hearing how the rich get a free ride on our backs.
not true… there is a premium paid by people over a certain income…. think it is over 85, ooo
Why aren’t you running for President? I’d vote for you.
Holy CRAP where do you get your information? Rick Santorum? Michele Bachmann? Faux Spews? Social Security IS IN NO DANGER OF GOING BANKRUPT even if Congress does nothing to change to funding formula. AT WORST, in 2035 (will YOU even be around?) Social Security payments will be reduced 25%-that means recipients would receive-IF CONGRESS DOE NOTHING-75 cents on the dollar. That’s a FAR CRY from “essentially bankrupt.”
Actually, you are wrong. When you operate on lies, your judgement suffers.
Immense ignorance of history and present realities.
Common sense is the argument people often use when they have no facts to support their position. It is also often used in the absence of logic. And John Galt? Lame, lame, lame.
More like all-too-common nonsense.
Medicare overheads run at 1 to 2% where as private companies 11 to 12%, I call that less expensive plus the private company also adds on a profit not included.
Common Sense would tell you Medicare is cheaper!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry to burst you bubble.
Really? Medicare is far cheaper and far more efficient than private insurance with 96 cents of every dollar going to actual healthcare. Only about 75 cents of every private healthcare company insurance dollar goes to actual care. The other quarter goes to profit and overhead, not everything is covered, and there are high deductables. Also, how many times have you tried to get warrantee help on a private product and had to talk to someone in India? Gee, is that better?
I wish I had a dime for every time I’ve tried to have a product serviced and the process was chock full of corporate run-around and bureaucracy and wasted time and aggravation. When I was in college, I had student private insurance through the college and paid my premiums dutifully. When I once had a medical procedure, I submitted the claim, and the insurance company did not pay it and never notified me that they didn’t pay it. I got a call from the private healthcare provider demanding I pay the bill out of pocket. I explained I had submitted the claim and that they should pay it. The private provider said they “probably wouldn’t” and insisted I pay the bill out of pocket. I told them I would not until I was notified whether or not the inurance company would pay all or part of it or not. So I called the insurance company and rattled their chain, and they said, “Oh. Well, ok, re-submit the claim and we will probably cover that.” So I had to do that. FINALLY the darn thing got paid properly after I had to go through all that foolishness from both the private insurance company AND the private healthcare provider. Gee. Better? Efficient? NOT EVEN CLOSE. IT STUNK ! Stories like this ABOUND. How many times have YOU been through nonsense like this in the private sector? How many times have YOU purchased a product or service that STUNK, and had to take it back and sometimes got a run-around in the process? And you can look at all kinds of examples of public sector services that are plenty efficient and timely and, indeed, cheaper than the private sector and more complete in the service without tons of limitations.
I don’t believe you went to college – STUNK kind of gives it away.
petty
Did you ever call the IRS?
Whatever. Medicare’s overhead is about 2%, private insurance companies are between 25%-30%. Also, Ayn Rand was a crazy person.
She may have been a crazy Russian and preached libertarian nonesense, but in the end she went on Medicare for her health care needs.
Ha! I guess Fascism only is attractive when you are healthy!
So tell me about how Fedex funded their pension for the next 75 years in a ten year window!
The only reason for Government Failure is from those who would design it to fail!
So you think that the private sector can handle health care faster and cheaper. HELLO! Didi you just emerge from a 200 year nap? That’s exactly the problem, between the healthcare industry and the insurance industry, people CANNOT AFFORD HEALTH CARE. Then again, I wouldn’t let the facts get in the way of you having your opinion.
Death panels? Give me a break. Hate-radio nonsense.
If you want to see death panels, look no further than the for-profit insurers, who have certainly enjoyed being able to cap limits on paying people’s medical bills in the middle of their cancer treatment, refuse to insure people who had ever been ill, charge such high premiums that many can afford only “catastrophic” care (not routine preventive care), and so on. Their ONLY motive is corporate profits.
IPAB IPAB IPAB
The law says “The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care.”
What is a ‘death panel’?
It is written into Obamacare as IPAB, an independent panel that is focused upon restricting access to benefits. Run by a government that will be under pressure to control costs, it will ultimately make decisions that will determine whether certain poor people live or die. Deny it all day long, but this is a fact. And it is morally wrong!
Sounds like what we have now with insurance companies.
As noted above, the law says “The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care.”
You really need to do some research before you post or turn off Fox, the panel is to find ways to lower costs, ways to stop diseases before they develop etc., they are not going to be like the insurance companies and refuse to treat certain things.
Lie….Lie…Lie….Lie….Lie….Lie……Lie. A Lie.
Insurance companies are death panels now, denying coverage for any reason, some of which are now illegal under the health care act.
First of all, as so many people have pointed out, there is not a shred of truth in what you stated. Apparently, you are one of those people who, according to a recent poll, believes that it is ok for “their side” to lie about the “other side” in order to win elections and enact their views into public policy.
Secondly, if you want an up-close-and-personal view of “death panels”, the poster child is health insurance companies, paraphrasing your words, ” Run by businesses that are under pressure to maximize profits, they ultimately make decisions that determine whether certain middle-class and poor people live or die. Deny it all day long, but this is a fact. And it is morally wrong!”
Every hospital has employees (not necessarily possessing medical background or education) whose sole role is to review the patient’s treatment plan, length of stay in the hospital, etc. in accordance with health insurance guidelines. If the insurance companies overrule the medical practitioners’ continued treatment the insurance company denies or ceases insurance coverage.
Furthermore, if a patient appeals an adverse decision by an insurance company, the first two levels of appeal are “reviewed” by physicians who receive compensation from the insurance company. Would you care to guess which side wins almost every time in the first two appeal levels? BIG HINT – it is not the patient.
Additionally, the insurance companies’ physicians are not legally required to have medical expertise in the patient’s health condition for which they require treatment. Here are two actual examples of denial of coverage because of alleged lack of “medical necessity”:
1. A person in their 60’s with a long-standing documented physical disability who was denied coverage for a mobility aid had their initial review done by a pediatric endocrinologist;
2. A person in their 20’s who had been admitted to a hospital for treatment of a life-threatening condition affecting their stomach/intestines was given one day’s notice that their health insurance coverage for the hospitalization would cease, despite the fact that they might die because of a premature discharge. The doctor who did their first review was a rheumatologist.
In the first example the patient gave up appealing after the denial in the first medical review, which is often typical because patients are worn down by the insurance bureaucracy and the paperwork. The second patient was denied at the first two levels, but persisted through level three. That independent physician, whose specialty was in the patient’s medical illness, ruled almost immediately that the insurance company had to continue covering the life-saving hospitalization.
Denial of coverage, “death panels”, etc., look to companies and their backers, not The Affordable Healthcare Act. But, again, why will you accept a truth that you don’t like when promoting a lie is so much easier!
That Death Panel’s getting old! right up there with the birth certificate thing. You gotta try harder. As far as shrinking the deficit, let’s see what happens now that the Senate shot down Dubya’s tax break for millionaires. Oh, in case you didn’t notice, Congress is in charge of spending the money, not the President. Too much Fox Noise.
You really need to turn off Fox, there is no such thing as death panels. This statement was rated as ‘”LIE OF THE YEAR-2009″ by Politifact. Do you post anything that might resemble the truth?????
“Death panels” was a LIE stated by the ultra goofball Sarah Palin long ago and that is all it is, a complete and utter LIE. So enough of the lies. The Affordable Care Act is the federal twin of ROMNEYCARE in Massachusetts, the very own plan of your very own candidate. So enough of the hyprocrisy too. And King will CRUSH the LeBUFFOON stooge Summers and become our next US Senator, and the Maine TeaPublicans are going to get SMASHED TO PIECES come November, and you know it.
Death Panels are a figment of the Right’s imagination. If you don’t believe me do some research into them.
Sure your name isn’t Koch? Parroting Bachmann and Palin drivel?
Ignorant comment, as in you do not know what you are talking about.
Wow! We have ANOTHER HERE, folks, that believes in unicorns, leprechauns, and “death panels.” Just because Sarah Palin uttered the phrase, Kouch, that DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE. As for the rest of your mindless, factless rant, the Congressional Budget Office, a NON-PARTISAN financial watchdog agency, has determined that the ACA WILL IN FACT REDUCE THE FEDERAL DEFICIT. Clearly, you choose to believe LIES over facts.
Or that you’re an independent thinker, and can think for yourself, even without FoxNews! :-)
Saving People’s Lives? If that were the goal no one would drive cars, no one would fly in airplanes and we’d all eat oatmeal for dinner.
What is the goal of healthcare?
As well as saving lives, the goal of health care is improvement of the quality of life.
Having health care is good. MaineCare / Medicaid is health insurance, period. No doubt you have it, use it, and like it. If you have cancer, your health insurance pays for treatment. If you have cancer and do not have health insurance, the ER is not the answer, as no doubt will be written – the ER will stabilize you then send you home. No chemo, no radiation, no long term treatment. Just a band-aid for whatever complaint you arrived with.
Health insurance is all Medicaid is. And yes, it saves lives, just like Aetna, Blue Cross, and other insurance does.
with less overhead.
Your level of risk perception, like too much of the American public, is sub-par and distorted.
John Galt is a fictional character.
With almost 7 billion people on the planet we can afford to lose some.
but we live in america!!!!!!!!! the best country on earth? you want americans to die?
you should consider that alternative for yourself?
Wow. What’s your take on the falsely alleged “Death Panels”?
No one is claiming their name to this article or editorial because it makes as muchs sense as the guy on MSNBC this morning saying that Oabamcare will reduce the deficit by $84billion. I can see the Strawman right now…
The $84 billion deficit reduction came from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is also utilized by Congressional Republicans.
It’s an editorial. Those are rarely signed.
MSNBC was reporting findings by the independent Congressional Budget Office which finds that the health care act will save the country money, allowing our manufacturers to compete on a more equal footing with other in the world, Strawman.
Another LaPage attack
It’s an opinion piece. You could write up pro-LePage editorial and submit it if you have something good to say about him.
Well deserved negative editorial opinion on LePage’s actions.
Love the picture and the sign. Repeal and Replace OBAMACARE with ROBMECARE ……..After all this was Mitt Robme’s idea in the first place. Too bad the picture of the sign got cut short.
This is grotesque, and desperate. It is clear that conservatives are winning in the marketplace of ideas when the radical leftist BDN editors resort to this low level of broadsides.
By the BDN’s reckoning, we should all be lining up to empty our wallets into the cups wielded by the growing number of bums at Bangor’s and Portland’s intersections, for to do otherwise would be to potentially cost lives. Reasonable? I think not.
Medicaid/care, like FDR’s Social Security, was establishedby liberals for the very political purpose to ultimately clobber good-intentioned Americans into a guilty reaction against any reasonable action to curb entitlements that could be easily predicted to run out of control.
Disgusting. And very very desperate.
Prediction: Obama loses by 10.
Dannyboy o Danny boy. Put your money on that bet.
Already have, thanks.
Low level of broadsides? Grotesque? How about the largely non-factual propaganda from conservative outlets? Those are desperate, and much lower. How low can you go? You can be a limbo star!
Intrade.com has Obama’s chances at winning at 57.5% and Romney’s 40.8%. Follow where the money’s going, and you might save yourself some embarrassment.
Wasting your time trying to convince LePage of this. LePage is not wedded to any political preference but he is an ideologue. He is a Social Darwinian to the end.
If you want to see real health insurance reform in Maine then stop giving the legisvermin taxpayer paid health insurance for a part time job. You would see meaningful reform in the health insurance market in a heartbeat if the legisvermin had to buy health insurance in what passes for the open market in Maine.
Leaders are supposed to lead. Instead the Maine politicians use the people of Maine like human shields to protect themselves while paying lip service to insurance reform.
LeBUFFOON and the corporate toadie TeaRadicals aren’t interested in saving lives, improving healthcare, or increasing coverage. They are entirely devoted to doing whatever helps insurance company CEO’s buy more mansions. That is ALL that they care about because the insurance company CEO’s OWN the TeaPublicans. The TeaPublicans, like their Maine front man the corporate toadie stooge LeBUFFOON, exist only to do whatever is good for the CORPORATE OUTSOURCER JOB KILLERS DETERMINDED TO DESTROY THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS. Just look at the history. Since 2001 the rich have had their tax cuts and deregulation. What did we get? We got the Republican Great Recession, the worst since the Great Depression, and just where are the “jobs jobs jobs” that these fat cats are supposed to be creating for us with the tax cuts they have ALREADY HAD for 10 or more years and which have been EXTENDED for the last two years? Where are they????
And now Mittens ROBme and all TeaPublicans want to give these job killers even MORE tax cuts that they can put in Swiss bank accounts and in the Cayman Islands? It is just disgusting. The TeaPublicans are corrupt to the very core.
If LaPudge were to choose to opt out of the enhanced medicaid portion of the ACA, and choose to not allow insurance exchanges, it would definitely be the defining moment of the failure of his administration.
—
Another hit piece on the Governor this always proves to me he is doing something right no one screams about someone as often as they scream about him unless he is really changing the status quo. As the saying goes Govenor laPaige is getting “Alinskied!”
The Lepage Sign on the Turnpike says Open For Business, it says nothing about saving lives!
The bottom line is this:
IF there are these so called Death Panels then it is not different than the private insurance companies being allowed to deny surgery, deny chemotherapy, deny diagnostics, deny medication….the list goes on…to people who are paying them to receive these “benefits”. People die every day because some random “panel of doctors” hired by their insurance company has determined it is not needed. Is that not a “death panel”??? So we would be no worse off in this area than we already are.
When uninsured people receive services at a hospital or doctor office and cannot pay the hospital or office take it as a write off. This ends up reducing what they pay to the government and in fact causes the government to pay them for the lost revenue. This ADDS to the deficit. The offset of all Americans having health insurance is less than what the government currently pays out annually for this lost revenue – so yes it will reduce the deficit.
And if you don’t believe that reducing the coverage in Maine will kill people then you need to get a CTScan because your brain has gone MIA! MaineCare covers so very little of preventative care that any further cuts to what is covered or who is covered would only result in illness, death and disease. Adults are not allowed dental visits – your oral health GREATLY impacts your physical health. An infection in your tooth or gums can travel directly to your heart; that is why heart patients have to take an antibiotic before any dental work. By the time you are allowed on MaineCare to see a dentist the tooth must be pulled leaving the gums vulnerable to decay because you are not allowed regular visits. Adults are not allowed glasses. That’s right – glasses not considered necessary. They will cover one visit every 24 mos to an optometrist but will not pay for the glasses NO MATTER WHAT! They will cover most annual physicals and many diagnostics but there are many medications that are not covered and if you have cancer there is much they will not cover for treatment and continuing diagnostics. If you have mental illness or a developmental disorder there is much they will not cover. And LeRage wants to cut this program even further?!?!
Excellent public service editorial by a respected newspaper. It shines light on a most important issue of our time while the frenzied nabobs of negativity dance like marionettes by their puppet masters…big pharma, insurance companies, and the merchants of Fear the Conservative Republican party. The hateful comments by some readers makes the case for implementing the Healthcare plan immediately.
“LePage should try arguing against saving people’s lives”? The BDN should try arguing a moot point. Oh wait, they did, since after November Romney and the GOP House and Senate will toss Obamacare in the socialist garbage bin (now with fresh scent odor shield).
Terrific editorial. Facts, logic, well reasoned, particularly proved by the total lack of reasonable comments here (out of 78 currently) for another opinion.
In Reply to Dannyboy7 and others with similar attitudes:
First of all, as so many people have pointed out, there is not a shred of truth in what you stated. Apparently, you are one of those people who, according to a recent poll, believes that it is ok for “their side” to lie about the “other side” in order to win elections and enact their views into public policy.
Secondly, if you want an up-close-and-personal view of “death panels”, the poster child is health insurance companies, paraphrasing your words, ” Run by businesses that are under pressure to maximize profits, they ultimately make decisions that determine whether certain middle-class and poor people live or die. Deny it all day long, but this is a fact. And it is morally wrong!”
Every hospital has employees (not necessarily possessing medical background or education) whose sole role is to review the patient’s treatment plan, length of stay in the hospital, etc. in accordance with health insurance guidelines. If the insurance companies overrule the medical practitioners’ continued treatment the insurance company denies or ceases insurance coverage.
Furthermore, if a patient appeals an adverse decision by an insurance company, the first two levels of appeal are “reviewed” by physicians who receive compensation from the insurance company. Would you care to guess which side wins almost every time in the first two appeal levels? BIG HINT – it is not the patient.
Additionally, the insurance companies’ physicians are not legally required to have medical expertise in the patient’s health condition for which they require treatment. Here are two actual examples of denial of coverage because of alleged lack of “medical necessity”:
1. A person in their 60’s with a long-standing documented physical disability who was denied coverage for a mobility aid had their initial review done by a pediatric endocrinologist;
2. A person in their 20’s who had been admitted to a hospital for treatment of a life-threatening condition affecting their stomach/intestines was given one day’s notice that their health insurance coverage for the hospitalization would cease, despite the fact that they might die because of a premature discharge. The doctor who did their first review was a rheumatologist.
In the first example the patient gave up appealing after the denial in the first medical review, which is often typical because patients are worn down by the insurance bureaucracy and the paperwork. The second patient was denied at the first two levels, but persisted through level three. That independent physician, whose specialty was in the patient’s medical illness, ruled almost immediately that the insurance company had to continue covering the life-saving hospitalization.
Denial of coverage, “death panels”, etc., look to companies and their backers, not The Affordable Healthcare Act. But, again, why will you accept a truth that you don’t like when promoting a lie is so much easier!