Partial Insurance Coverage( With Medicaid) - Verses Obamacare

   Contributions into the insurance pool funds is better than no contributions into the insurance funds.

With Obamacare, the people who are placed into Medicaid coverage are not contributing to the pool. This puts pressure onto the other policies , regardless of how you politically spin it. (The facts.)

   It is better to have most of the people who are working at lower wages, to contribute by having extra coverage on private policies. The policies in this case, compliment their Medicaid coverage.
  It is also more economically feasible to have those with partial coverage, phase into full coverage, over a period of time.

   I was saying that partial coverage (with private sector policies)  would be far less expensive to the working poor and others, because of Medicaid coverage. And vice versa.
   Partial Medicaid with partial insurance coverage would be the best way to cover the uninsured.

 There would be far less pressure on other policies, with respect to cost transference.
  
The main costs with Medicaid is subsidies paid out. The actual payout would be less, to a possibly greater degree, with partial coverage on policies from insurance companies that cover enough to alleviate a good deal of the burden on Medicaid.

    A less expensive policy is possible with a partial coverage policy. This could also cover areas that Medicaid does not cover. Taking into consideration the necessary modifications on Minimum Coverage that is mandated by Obamacare.
The coverage that was actually necessary was once again left out and more money was to be spent on what was called Mental Healthcare, which was actually just testing and medical tests after assessments on substance abuse.
 Keep it in mind, that, the testing that can be mandated after assessments, that are not done by professionals, can be expensive. In that case, also possibly unnecessary.