Medicaid is better than no insurance in terms of diagnostics
In many ways, at the moment, the opinions on Medicaid became very radicalized. People sometimes claim that studies showed too little difference between treatment received by the people without any medical insurance and those with Medicaid. However, the intermediate results of treatment are similar among different groups of patients. It is important to point out the fact that the medical outcomes of the patients do not always depend on the quality of health care services. For that reason, when evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of Medicaid compared to no insurance whatsoever, it is more important to look into the rates of detection and management of different medical conditions, and in this respect, Medicaid is better.
Medicaid is better than no insurance in short-term evaluation
The main advantage of Medicaid in comparison to being uninsured is that it provides people with intermediate access to medical care. In contemporary circumstances, it is important to understand that people should take care of their health regularly rather than just go to the hospital when they feel extremely bad. From this point of view, Medicaid appears to be more effective than being uninsured because people with Medicaid check their health more regularly. It is too early to judge about the long-run consequences, such as life expectancy of those who use Medicaid and those who are uninsured, but Medicaid is better in terms of consistent care of one’s health.
Any insurance is better than no health care at all
Since the Oregon Experiment, the general public’s opinion regarding Medicaid seems to become worse. However, it is unfair on several levels. First of all, it was proved that people with Medicaid received more medical care, and due to this fact, the detection of such conditions as diabetes increased substantially. In my opinion, more opportunities to define diseases is the first step to managing them. The good health often depends on the consistency of having health care, whereas being uninsured most often result in the fact that people do not receive medical attention timely, simply because they ignore the regularity of their medical checks. For that reason, any insurance is better than ignoring timely health care.
Medicaid is better than no insurance according to the Oregon Experiment
In my opinion, the data obtained from the Oregon Experiment can be interpreted differently, which is why there are many controversies about Medicaid. Since life expectancy is supposedly better among the people with no insurance, it is reasonable to admit that there are some failed approaches used by Medicaid in the first years of its existence, but it does not mean that it cannot be improved.
Medicaid showed to have not only failure experiences but also some significant progress in terms of detecting clinical depression, mental diseases, diabetes, etc. That is why, in my opinion, the Medicaid would be better than being uninsured, but only if some of its issues are resolved.
Medicaid is more effective than being uninsured but should be improved
The empirical studies demonstrated that both the absence of insurance and Medicaid have poor results from the standpoint of medical outcomes for the patients. On one hand, it is important to note that being uninsured creates certain risks for health but saves money for the people for whom it is hard to afford insurance. On the other hand, Medicaid helped to detect many cases of depression and other mental disorders, which is a very significant area of medical help nowadays. Therefore, my opinion is that if only some aspects of Medicaid are more effective than being uninsured, its agenda and approaches should be reworked to be aimed at the areas, where it is most effective. Otherwise, it has very few advantages over being uninsured.