Lt. Gov’s Press Conference: Personal Responsibility and Free Markets
At yesterday’s press conference, featuring Lieutenant Governor Elizabeth Roberts, RI Secretary of Health and Human Services Stephen Costantino, and new health exchange Director Christine Ferguson, I asked about the uninsured Rhode Islanders expected to find coverage with the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).
How many of the 120,000 new recipients would really just be young adults who’ve heretofore determined that they don’t really need coverage? My premise is that such people don’t necessarily overlap extensively with the population that uses expensive emergency room services as a primary care vehicle.
The answers were interesting, especially for anybody who is striving to assess the likely next steps of health care policy development. Costantino seemed at least partially to affirm my premise: “You have some young people who are working for a small business that don’t have health insurance; they haven’t really utilized the system. But it’s scary.”
Continue reading on the Ocean State Current…
By definition, any insurance system is going to be a losing financial proposition for most of the participants. The progressive idea that insurance saves everyone money is nonsensical and misunderstands from where the high costs truly derive.
“How many of the 120,000 new recipients would really just be young adults who’ve heretofore determined that they don’t really need coverage? My premise is that such people don’t necessarily overlap extensively with the population that uses expensive emergency room services as a primary care vehicle.”
Justin Katz
What happens now when one of your young adults who’ve heretofore determined that they don’t really need coverage is involved in an automobile accident? Are their injuries treated? Does their emergency care include expensive ER and Trauma care? Who picks up the tab for this and possible extended hospital care if the injuries are severe? How many young adults have delayed a visit to seek medical aid initially only to be forced to do so later at greater risk and expense?
Phil – Your mad progressive quest to create a world free of all risk through top-down government control can only result in a world with 100% risk of economic stagnation, sacrificed individual liberty, and mediocrity in all things. People should be free to weigh their personal risks for themselves. Insurance is an investment that will by definition lose money for most. It is not a right or a necessity and is not directly related to the care itself.
Mandated emergency medical treatment was introduced in the 1970’s, if I recall correctly. Most alive today were alive then. Although I personally was not, they report to me that people were not dying in the streets as progressives claim and the United States did not in any way resemble an out-of-control carnage scene from Jurassic Park.
Dan
I don’t have all the answers so I ask questions. You have made a bunch of wild assumptions about me. If this is an example of how you would weigh your risks then all I can do is to wish you good luck. I don’t mind being a part of paying for other people when they need help even when the help they need has resulted from their own actions. As to what occurred in the 70’s remember that doctors and nurses and patients used to smoke cigarettes inside hospitals in this country.
Excuse me, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act was actually passed in 1986. Since I was alive (although young) at that time and continue to be alive in 2012, I can logically conclude that the world did not in fact end due to a lack of universal publicly-funded access to emergency rooms prior to that date.
By definition, any insurance system is going to be a losing financial proposition for most of the participants. The progressive idea that insurance saves everyone money is nonsensical and misunderstands from where the high costs truly derive.
Posted By Dan
Where do the high costs derive?
“The progressive idea that insurance saves everyone money is nonsensical and misunderstands from where the high costs truly derive.”
That’s not the progressive position, but why let that get in the way? Yes, clearly progressives like me don’t understand health insurance, eh?