Sure am glad Obamacare expanded Medicaid.....

[ya-ta-hey]

Whoops.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/11/four-reasons-why-the-oregon-medicaid-results-are-even-worse-than-they-look/

Turns out an Oregon study shows being uninsured is better than being on Medicaid.

 

[fairsheet]

Forbes's screeder is a baldfaced liar. How do we know this? Simple.....Time and again, in his prior screed and his more current screed, he refers to "poor outcomes". Yet nowhere does he offer up any evidence whatsoever, of "poor outcomes". At best, all he has at hand are "unimproved" outcomes. In terms of adults considering an issue such as this rationally, the difference is profound. The former suggests that expanded Medicaid made Oregon's healthcare situation worsed. And again...he offers no evidence to that affect. That latter suggests that expanded Medicaid - for all it cost, didn't improve the situation.

Of course we COULD give the screeder the benefit of the doubt and assume that HE believes the prior reality was "poor". But then, where do we see HIS recommendations for actually improving that situation?

 

[ya-ta-hey]

Forbes's screeder is a baldfaced liar. How do we know this? Simple.....Time and again, in his prior screed and his more current screed, he refers to "poor outcomes". Yet nowhere does he offer up any evidence whatsoever, of "poor outcomes". At best, all he has at hand are "unimproved" outcomes. In terms of adults considering an issue such as this rationally, the difference is profound. The former suggests that expanded Medicaid made Oregon's healthcare situation worsed. And again...he offers no evidence to that affect. That latter suggests that expanded Medicaid - for all it cost, didn't improve the situation.

Of course we COULD give the screeder the benefit of the doubt and assume that HE believes the prior reality was "poor". But then, where do we see HIS recommendations for actually improving that situation?

Mr. Fair,

Yes, but do you anything to counter the debate besides your "poison the well" and ad hominem fallacious retort? By the by, his evidence is the State of Oregon sponsored research study.

 

[fairsheet]

Mr. Fair,

Yes, but do you anything to counter the debate besides your "poison the well" and ad hominem fallacious retort? By the by, his evidence is the State of Oregon sponsored research study.

As I say, nothing in his linked documentation refers to "poor outcomes". So, that he would pull "poor outcomes" out his editorial ass, is telling.

 

[ya-ta-hey]

As I say, nothing in his linked documentation refers to "poor outcomes". So, that he would pull "poor outcomes" out his editorial ass, is telling.

Mr. Fair,

You did not read the State of Oregon study. That's exactly what the study says. By the by, parsing phrases and obsessing on semantics is not honest debate.