>>
>>I for one never believed the AHCA/ACA would be an economic stimulus. It was intended to fix a broken system. When you are spending way more of GDP on health care than other developed nations, yet receiving below average health care, it was way past time to try something different.
>
>Mike I completely reject the idea that the U.S. receives below average health care. The phrase is sloppy and misleading. I'll acknowledge that health coverage and health plans have had significant issues in the U.S.. But even in the stats in those indicators, there exists some very misleading numbers.
>
>Here's an example - much has been made about the "47 million" who are uninsured. People who have slammed the U.S. health care system have often used that indicator. But when you break it down, the actual data paints a different picture:
>
>- The 47 million always included the 11+ million who are in this country illegally,
>
>- Roughly 20 million represents a snapshot of people who are in a temporary scenario of being between jobs and didn't opt for COBRA. (I've done that before in the past), and/or the young/healthy (who are still not signing up at the rate the White House hoped). Since COBRA allows for retroactive coverage, that explains why some didn't opt for COBRA unless they had to.
>
>- An estimated 5 million qualified for Medicaid, but did not sign up/follow up
>
>When you take the remaining number, it comes close to the # of people who lost their plans in late 2013 (and will be a drop in the bucket compared with the # who lose their plans when the employer mandate hit)
>
>But remember, the quality of the actual medical care is still ranked high.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/06/16/once-again-u-s-has-most-expensive-least-effective-health-care-system-in-survey/