Franken destroys Republican talking point on Trumpcare using science

https://thinkprogress.org/franken-republican-talking-point-841f387ddc09

Judd Legum
Editor-In-Chief, ThinkProgress
Jun 26
Franken destroys Republican talking point on Trumpcare using science
Cutting through the spin in 72 seconds.


The Senate version of Trumpcare makes devastating cuts to the Medicaid program for low-income Americans. Many Republican supporters of the bill are responding to this issue by simply denying the cuts exist.

A more intellectually honest argument is advanced by Avik Roy, a conservative health care expert, in the Washington Post. In an editorial published Monday, Roy acknowledges Medicaid is cut, but argues that having Medicaid coverage is no better than being uninsured.

snip//

Monday morning on MSNBC, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) countered Roy’s argument. He noted that the tax cuts that Trumpcare would deliver to the richest 400 taxpayers would pay for 750,000 people to be on Medicaid. Franken didn’t rely on a single study but cited the more comprehensive analysis of recent research on Medicaid published in NEJM. These researchers found that for every 750,000 people who lose Medicaid coverage, 1,000 to 2,000 people would die.

Franken actually understates the case. The NEJM cited a recent study estimating that Medicaid expansion has saved one life for every 239 to 319 people covered. That means enrolling 750,000 people in Medicaid could actually save 2,300 to 3,100 lives.

This also makes intuitive sense. When people have life-threatening illnesses, they need treatment and Medicaid gives them access to treatment. Without insurance, underlying health issues go untreated and can eventually be fatal.

There are also other benefits to health coverage besides avoiding death. It can, and does, improve quality of life. In fact, the same Oregon study that Roy uses to prove Medicaid is worthless did report improvements in a variety of health outcomes that impact people’s quality of life.

The Oregon study found significantly improved outcomes on a variety of issues — “depression, self-reported health, decrease in pain” — that “are themselves predictive of reduced mortality over a 5- to 10-year period.”

Roy’s argument also assumes that those who are kicked off of Medicaid would be able to afford coverage under the Trumpcare exchanges. This population, however, is near the poverty line. Although some may be able to pay a small premium, Trumpcare only requires insurance coverage to pay for 58 percent of costs. That means very low-income Americans, who currently are covered under Medicaid, would be expected to pay thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs — money they do not have.