5 ms·
Barack Obama Publishes Defense of the ACA in the New England Journal of Medicine
- jbigelow76 10y agoI doubt anyone in Congress or the White House working to repeal the ACA reads the New England Journal of Medicine.
- grzm 10y agoIt's a pretty prestigious journal. It's likely that aides to senators and representatives in key positions, as well as it being forwarded from interested constituents will make sure that the article makes the rounds. And it's generally good political practice to keep informed on the moves made by major players. Likely people in the White House know about it as well.
- dghughes 10y ago> It's a pretty prestigious journal... It is but these days it can hard to know going by past reputation alone. There seems to be a push by some sleazy publishers to buy prestigious medical journals and then take money to publish questionable studies. Even the watchdogs who have tried to warn everyone have given up (or were forced to shut up). http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/website-tracking-so-called-predatory-publishers-taken-offline-1.3251792 http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/website-tracking-so-called-pred...
- grzm 10y agoWhile I appreciate the skepticism, and it is sad that there is an apparently increasing number of questionable journals out there, do you have any evidence that NEJM is one of them? They're currently run by the NEJM Group, which is controlled by the Massachusetts Medical Society. http://www.massmed.org http://www.massmed.org
- dghughes 10y agoNo I'm not saying NEJM is I was trying to raise awareness of the situation. That's good to know NEJM is run by a stable group.
- jbigelow76 10y agoWhen I say "read" I mean take the time to understand it and put thoughtful consideration into it. Repealing Obamacare is an idealogical imperative to most Republican legislators, it's intrinsic to their identity now. Awareness of what they probably consider propaganda is not the same as "reading" it.
- projektfu 10y agoThey might not, but they are probably lobbied by doctors, hospital administrators, and insurance executives, all of whom are likely to at least skim the top medical journals.
- maxxxxx 10y agoI don't think any of these groups care much about affordable Care.
- rdtsc 10y agoOur HMO we used at old job hated ACA. At least their representative told us that informally. Another doctor I know also does not like. Someone who is self-employed with a pre-existing condition really likes it. It was hard for them to get insurance before.
- maxxxxx 10y agoThe US system certainly makes a lot of money for providers and insurances. Otherwise it would be cheaper. The money must be going somewhere. These people don't want change.
- rdtsc 10y ago> These people don't want change. Well, unless the change brings them more money. In this case I guess it didn't.
- rrock 10y agoNot so. Here's what one prominent hospital administrator (and academic physician) has to say about it. http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20170124/OPINION/170129946/go-ahead-and-fix-the-affordable-care-act-but-dont-repeal-it http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20170124/OPINION/1701...
- moioci 10y agoSome articles have suggested that ACA repeal poses an existential threat to rural hospitals and even the private healthcare industry, so those groups definitely care about remaining in business.
- pcunite 10y agowill likely be true with President-elect Donald Trump Is it still proper to refer to him that way?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- tinalumfoil 10y agoOnly if it was initially published before the inauguration, which it appears to be.
- grzm 10y agoLooks like the article was first published prior to the inauguration: This article was published on January 6, 2017, at NEJM.org. Admittedly it's a bit confusing, given the online article is dated January 26, and includes "SOURCE INFORMATION: Mr. Obama is the former President of the United States." Likely inconsistency when repurposing content.
- spoiledtechie 10y agoIt's a wonderful idea. Free healthcare for all. Sadly, it simply isn't sustainable financially. I think in the next 10 years alone it was supposed to cost tax payers 10 trillion and that money can't literally be printed fast enough and the debt our country holds, extremely unsustainable. If they did it cheaper or more cost effective, I would say yes, but financially, you can't.
- aplummer 10y agoIt's sustainable in all the other first world countries. I don't understand what is different about the United States.
- hsitz 10y agoI'm not sure what you're talking about, but it's definitely not the ACA/Obamacare. The ACA has has nothing to do with "free healthcare for all", and is only tangentially related to free healthcare for anybody (by its relations to Medicaid and Medicare). If you're talking about virtually every major country besides the U.S., though, they do have something close to free healthcare for all, and it does work, and it's actually a lot cheaper for their societies than the system we have in U.S.
- pessimizer 10y agoEntirely silly. Free healthcare is cheaper than what we have. If we could reduce the portion of GDP spent on healthcare to the level of what all other rich western countries have spent on their unsustainable universal healthcare for decades for better outcomes than what we have, we would be running surpluses. Our crap healthcare is one of the biggest drains on the economy. What the US government spends on healthcare disregarding spending by individuals is still more per capita than any other universal health service.
- sjg007 10y agoYou have no idea what you are talking about. Multiple countries have single payer and good health outcomes. And it doesn't cost 10 trillion.
- WaylonKenning 10y ago
- ikeboy 10y agoNo peer review?
- grzm 10y agoIt's a Perspective piece, similar to an editorial. It's not a paper.
- thomasthomas 10y agoThanks to the ACA, a larger share of Americans have health insurance than ever before because its compulsory. this shouldn't an argument for the ACAs effectiveness. I have to buy car insurance if i choose to drive a car on public roads. i have to pay income tax if i have income. now, by birth, i automatically owe the state. i'd like my freedom and right to choose back please. the fact this isn't the main argument from GOP shows their incompetence.
- dlp211 10y agoYou pay for private insurance or you pay for public insurance via taxes. Any other solution is unworkable and you are a free rider.
- 67726e 10y agoOr you pay a hefty tax penalty. Hardly "free"
- thomasthomas 10y agoi'd like the choice to not have any insurance
- mikeash 10y agoHow will you ensure that paramedics won't take you to the hospital if you have a sudden event in the street?
- d_e_solomon 10y agoJust to be sure - if you show up at the hospital w/o means of payment - even if in coma - are you going to be treated? If yes, then you have insurance and you're free-riding on the system. If no, then you're more barbaric than Reagan.
- nyxtom 10y agoThat's not a sustainable choice for our economy, it leads to too many people living like nothing could possibly go wrong until they need a doctor. The point of insurance is to distribute risk, not participating in that effectively negates the effectiveness of the industry.
- uberuberuber 10y agoFor 8 years, this man had the option to walk humanity back from the threat of hair-trigger, launch-on-warning nuclear armageddon. An armageddon that would either destroy humanity in a single day...or perhaps merely starve a few billion in the resulting nuclear winter. From these facts alone, I know everything I need to know about his, and all US presidents, commitment to the health of their citizens, and humanity at large.
- flukus 10y agoOr Armageddon simply isn't profitable.
- JohnJamesRambo 10y agoI miss having a President that can write in complete sentences.
- maxerickson 10y agoRelated discussion, JAMA paper published last summer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12081314 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12081314