« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Romney and Obama Sing From The Same Hymnal on Emergency Room Care

A sure sign of political silly season: seeing a whole lot of Obama supporters reflexively pushing the same attacks on Romney with the same overheated rhetoric at the same time on points that don’t stand up to even the most modest logical scrutiny. You’d think, given the clear and obvious points of disagreement between these two tickets on some issues, that would be the focus, but no…

Here’s Romney on 60 Minutes the other night:

[W]e do provide care for people who don’t have insurance … if someone has a heart attack, they don’t sit in their apartment and – and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital and give them care. And different states have different ways of providing for that care.

Romney in 2010:

It doesn’t make a lot of sense for us to have millions and millions of people who have no health insurance and yet who can go to the emergency room and get entirely free care for which they have no responsibility

NPR characterizes this as “Romney said almost exactly the opposite,” but it’s exactly the same point: Romney’s been arguing for years that his health care mandate plan in Massachusetts was designed in large part to deal with the issue of hospitals getting stuck with the bill for emergency room care that federal law (EMTALA) requires them to provide, but for which they are often unable to collect payment from the uninsured. Romney in 2007, defending his plan on Glenn Beck’s show:

When they show up at the hospital, they get care; they get free care paid for by you and me…If that’s not a form of socialism, I don’t know what is.

“Socialism” here is typical of Romney trying too hard to pander to his audience; he’s never been a good political communicator, and if anything he was even worse in 2007, one reason why he lost in the primaries that year. (I’ll set aside the issue, which will be the subject of a much longer post in the works, over how we distinguish socialism from other forms of collectivism). Plainly, though, what he’s describing is a form of redistribution, i.e., some people receiving services and others getting the bill.

NPR argues that Romney is wrong because uninsured people do get stuck with large bills for emergency room services, but this completely misses his point, which is that (1) uninsured people do go to emergency rooms for care because they know it has to be given regardless of insurance or ability to pay and (2) hospitals are frequently unable to collect these bills, and end up passing on the costs to other customers and/or taxpayers.

You may agree or disagree with Romney’s preferred solutions to this – which, in Massachusetts, were essentially identical to Obamacare. You may even think he’s unduly concerned about the wrong problems. But what you can’t do is attack him for saying this stuff without mentioning that Obama has been saying the exact same thing for years, and indeed has made it a central theme of his policy and legal arguments for his own health care policies. Here’s Obama in June 2012:

First, when uninsured people who can afford coverage get sick, and show up at the emergency room for care, the rest of us end up paying for their care in the form of higher premiums.

Here’s Obama in July 2012:

And the only people who may have a problem with this law are folks who can afford health care but aren’t buying it, wait until they get sick and then going to the emergency room and expecting everybody else to pick up the tab. That’s not responsibility. That’s not consistent with who we are.

Basically, Obama is calling people who go to the emergency room for care irresponsible and un-American. You have a problem with Romney saying this kind of thing, you also have a problem with Obama. Here’s White House Press Secretary Jay Carney in June 2012:

You have a choice to buy — if you can afford health insurance — and you can, I assume, Jared. So if you don’t buy it, and you can afford it, it is an irresponsible thing to do to ask the rest of America’s taxpayers to pay for your care when you go to the emergency room.

You can find more examples of this with a simple Google search of the White House website.

Now, I wish we had a Republican candidate who was not burdened by the legacy of Romneycare, as its aftermath in Massachusetts illustrates the folly of the Obamacare solution to the EMTALA “free rider” problem; we have to settle for Romney pledging to repeal a law that does things he evidently still believes in. A more robust debate on the issue would benefit everyone. But it’s a sign of the intellectual bankruptcy of Obama’s defenders that they can find nothing better to do than beat up on Romney for making the exact same arguments as Obama in defense of the exact same policy solutions to the exact same problems. If it offends you to see this sort of thing said about people who go to emergency rooms to get EMTALA-mandated care they will not end up paying for, I have one simple answer for you: don’t vote for President Obama.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • Jack_Savage

    I would offer that Barack Obama’s economy is directly responsible for your layoff, and I would also be willing to bet that you are still going to vote for him.
    That is exactly why having a rational discussion with a liberal is so difficult – this suspension of reality problem.
    I hope Romney wins so you can go back to work soon.

  • Moriah

    I’m not entirely sure of that.

    As I said, contracts I signed prohibit me from going into a great deal of detail, but I know that one reason people were cut from the position I held was that our major competitors were outsourcing a lot of the same types of jobs to India. (I did server support via telephone and remote access for enterprise servers we sold to a major retailer.) One of our direct competitors on the account decided to move all of its support of that nature to a call center in India.

    In order to keep up with competition, other competitors had to do the same in order to keep that major retailer’s business, despite the fact the customer was unhappy with the level of support they were receiving — we did get some increased business since we’d kept our office local and provided better support, but another competitor decided to fire most of their higher paid employees and replace them with contractors. Thus, they were able to lower the cost of the support they were providing and still keep it local. I have little doubt that the same competitors provide services to other accounts than the one I was on and took the same measures.

    In the face of competition, my company had little choice but to do the same. They have increased their contingent workforce and interns, who are paid much less and do not have the same types of benefits that the full time employees did. Due to certain laws, the ones of us (from both my company and the competitor who went with contract labor) who were fired cannot work in our old positions for a year, even if the contracting companies and our old bosses would love to have us back, and we’d love to be back at work even at lower pay.

    Whether the cascade of events that led to the massive layoffs was the fault of a CEO who is new and decided to abandon the older principles our company had in the face of economic slowdowns and competition trying to find the best value for their buck at the expense of jobs here, or the fault of Obama’s policies, I really don’t know. Their stock value certainly has not increased as a result of their decisions.

    I’ve decided to make the best of it — I’m moving back closer to where my family is from, and looking for work there. The U-Haul gets loaded tomorrow, and I’m hopeful that if nothing else I can work temporarily for the county election board, helping to make the election actually happen. (I was a poll worker in 2008 — best day of the entire election season, as I heard no partisan bickering whatsoever.– it was just nose to the grindstone all day checking in voters.) After that, I’m looking at both public and private-sector jobs — my family lives very near the area where most of the prison system exists in my state, and there may be IT positions available in the Department of Corrections.

    Thank you for the well-wishes in gaining new employment. :)

  • Moriah

    Sadly, I’m over 30 and still liberal…. the old adage may apply. ;)

  • commonsenseobserver

    Mitt had better have a clearer position on healthcare than what he has now… It’s infuriating to see him throwing out Romneycare as an example of empathy without further clarity and contrast.

  • hart65

    This whole premise of “If you don’t buy it and can afford it…” is the problem. Require people who don’t qualify for Medicaid to buy catastrophic coverage with a Medicare like tax. If that tax impacts their very basic food, shelter and clothing needs, supplement their income with the existing means tested welfare programs. Any costs below the catastrophic coverage are billed directly to the patient and carry the same credit consequences as any other consumer debts. With an approach like this, excellent healthcare is provided to all with minimum wealth redistribution… for the bad debts on the small stuff. The wealth that IS redistributed will be for “If you can’t ‘afford’ basic needs, the rest of us will help you out.” I am willing to see my tax dollars spent to provide the basics… But I am not willing to have my tax dollars go to people with nicer homes, fancier cars and more electronics that I have. Because THEY decided they “Can’t afford health insurance.”

  • commonsenseobserver

    And that is different from Obamacare because?
    I think it’d be better to end tax discrimination between personal and employer purchase of insurance, taking steps to expand patient choice, and discouraging ineffiency.

  • Pingback: My Homepage