SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: combjelly who wrote (961574)9/6/2016 9:03:21 AM
From: TimF  Respond to of 1587912
 
Right. So nothing much happens for a decade or more.

No. It happens earlier. In less then a year you could get a stimulus effect (although you don't really want one in good economic times), and in much less then a decade you would get a positive supply side effect.

Its just that the supply side effect is often (not always) modest, and can take time to compound before its large (although this isn't always the case).

Not to mention the economic effects of pullbacks in public education and infrastructure

Such pullbacks are almost always claimed without being real, or for a short time only. Real spending per student has had strong durable growth across the country. To a lesser extent infrastructure spending (whether your talking about goverment paid for infrastructure only, or infrastructure in general) has gone up as well.

And this doesn't even address the increased mortality due to cuts in Medicaid.

A dubious claim. For one thing Medicaid is like education and infrastructure in that cuts are often claimed, but mostly aren't cuts and when they are they are short term with strong growth over time.

Also -

Does Medicaid Save Lives?
Joseph Lawler
July 8, 2011, 4:37 pm

There are a number of studies that cast a surprising amount of doubt on the effectiveness of Medicaid in improving health and reducing mortality. Although those results should cause some soul-searching on the part of supporters of Obamacare (which will expand Medicaid to reduce the number of uninsured), they are not definitive by any means, in part because it’s normally very hard to do clinical trial-style tests on health insurance programs.

The state of Oregon, however, recently performed something like a natural experiment that provided researchers with chance to see whether Medicaid causes better outcomes among enrollees. Oregon increased Medicaid by holding a lottery for people who wanted to sign up, leading to people being randomly assigned to two groups: the people who won the lottery and enrolled in Medicaid, and those who lost the lottery and didn’t get Medicaid. In other words, the lottery effectively created a treatment group and a control group, allowing for a more rigorous test.

A year into the program, a number of prominent health researchers have studied the results. Much of what they found reflects well on Medicaid: those on Medicaid received more care, reported better health, and faced fewer financial hardships than those without.

Yet in other ways, the study’s conclusions for other key outcomes were still inconclusive. As Megan McArdle notes, one thing the study doesn’t show is that Medicaid saves lives:
This is exactly what the study does not find. Indeed, it pretty much confirms what has come to be my view of the evidence on the impact of insurance: you see a very clear impact on utilization, including a handful of recommended preventative screenings, as well as hospitalizations and other treatments. You see a moderately strong effect on both patient and provider finances: fewer medical bills sent to collections, and lower self-reported financial strain from medical costs. And people like being insured, so various self-reported measures rise. The rest is more ambiguous.

For example, the strongest impact on health that they find is that self-reported health status rises by a modest-but-still-significant 0.2 standard deviations: reported depression goes down, while the people who won the lottery were more likely to say that they were in good, very good, or excellent health. This rules out the theory that people who have more contact with the health system might feel less healthy because their doctor gives them more things to be paranoid about, but as Finkelstein et. al note, it doesn’t quite show that they’re actually healthier. Indeed, about 2/3 of the improvement in self-reported physical health comes almost immediately, before people had a chance to consume much in the way of health services; this suggests that the effect may be psychological rather than the result of any improvement in their physical well being. As the authors say “Overall, the evidence suggests that people feel better off due to insurance, but with the current data it is difficult to determine the fundamental drivers of this improvement.”
spectator.org

"Arguably they are better off then they would have been already."

By what metric?


Economic growth, employment, etc.

Better off then they would have been does not equal or imply, better off, or better then other states.