Let's head to the Wayback Machine, and set the dial for June of 2011:
"Two reports from Boston.com, one in 2010 the other today show ER visits are on the rise, not decline."
Boston, one may recall, is in Massachusetts, home of ObamaTax progenitor RomneyCare. Proponents of the latter touted its ability to reduce costly Emergency Room visits, and thus drive down the "cost curve."
[ed: Funny how we don't seem to hear much about that "cost curve" thingy any more. Wonder why?]
Of course, it did no such thing:
"MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who helped legislators draft the law, said some people who avoided emergency rooms because they were too expensive in the earlier period may be using them more, now that they have coverage"
Hold the presses!
Jonathan Gruber, you say? That Jonathan Gruber?
Hunh.
In the event, we knew well over three years ago that schemes like RomneyCare and ObamaCare do not, in fact, reduce ER visits.
Why bring this up now, you ask?
Well:
"More people newly insured by Medicaid under ObamaCare are seeking treatment in hospital emergency rooms — one of the most expensive medical settings, a study released Monday concludes"
Deja vu all over again.
So we knew - conclusively - over three years ago that increasing access to health insurance would necessarily lead to increased use of "free" services (like the ER). Which are, of course, decidedly not free.
As newly-insured folks are finding out. Two years ago, we noted:
"[A]bout 80,000 emergency room patients at hospitals owned by HCA, the nation's largest for-profit hospital chain, left without treatment after being told they would have to first pay $150 because they did not have a true emergency."
ObamaPlan customers may be in for a rude awakening.
"Two reports from Boston.com, one in 2010 the other today show ER visits are on the rise, not decline."
Boston, one may recall, is in Massachusetts, home of ObamaTax progenitor RomneyCare. Proponents of the latter touted its ability to reduce costly Emergency Room visits, and thus drive down the "cost curve."
[ed: Funny how we don't seem to hear much about that "cost curve" thingy any more. Wonder why?]
Of course, it did no such thing:
"MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who helped legislators draft the law, said some people who avoided emergency rooms because they were too expensive in the earlier period may be using them more, now that they have coverage"
Hold the presses!
Jonathan Gruber, you say? That Jonathan Gruber?
Hunh.
In the event, we knew well over three years ago that schemes like RomneyCare and ObamaCare do not, in fact, reduce ER visits.
Why bring this up now, you ask?
Well:
"More people newly insured by Medicaid under ObamaCare are seeking treatment in hospital emergency rooms — one of the most expensive medical settings, a study released Monday concludes"
Deja vu all over again.
So we knew - conclusively - over three years ago that increasing access to health insurance would necessarily lead to increased use of "free" services (like the ER). Which are, of course, decidedly not free.
As newly-insured folks are finding out. Two years ago, we noted:
"[A]bout 80,000 emergency room patients at hospitals owned by HCA, the nation's largest for-profit hospital chain, left without treatment after being told they would have to first pay $150 because they did not have a true emergency."
ObamaPlan customers may be in for a rude awakening.
Posts
