"Mitt Romney [...] Emergency Room As Health Care Option For Unininsured"

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

bougiecric

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
104
Reaction score
96
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/23/mitt-romney-60-minutes-health-care_n_1908129.html

WASHINGTON -- Downplaying the need for the government to ensure that every person has health insurance, Mitt Romney on Sunday suggested that emergency room care suffices as a substitute for the uninsured.

"Well, we do provide care for people who don't have insurance," he said in an interview with Scott Pelley of CBS's "60 Minutes" that aired Sunday night. "If someone has a heart attack, they don't sit in their apartment 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."

This constitutes a dramatic reversal in position for Romney, who passed a universal health care law in Massachusetts, in part, to eliminate the costs incurred when the uninsured show up in emergency rooms for care. Indeed, in both his book and in high-profile interviews during the campaign, Romney has touted his achievement in stamping out these inefficiencies while arguing that the same thing should be done at the national level.

And while Romney refused to agree on Sunday that the government's role is to ensure that every American has health care, he has endorsed such an idea in the past.
When asked in a March 2010 interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" whether he believes in universal coverage, Romney said, "Oh, sure."

"Look, 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, particularly if they are people who have sufficient means to pay their own way," he said.

And in a 2007 interview with Glenn Beck, Romney called the fact that people without insurance were able to get "free care" in emergency rooms "a form of socialism."
"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," he said at the time. "So my plan did something quite different. It said, you know what? If people can afford to buy insurance ... or if they can pay their own way, then they either buy that insurance or pay their own way, but they no longer look to government to hand out free care. And that, in my opinion, is ultimate conservativism."

Getting rid of high numbers of inefficient emergency room visits was actually a key goal of Romney's health care reform in Massachusetts, as he noted in his book "No Apology":
After about a year of looking at data -- and not making much progress -- we had a collective epiphany of sorts, an obvious one, as important observations often are: the people in Massachusetts who didn't have health insurance were, in fact, already receiving health care. Under federal law, hospitals had to stabilize and treat people who arrived at their emergency rooms with acute conditions. And our state's hospitals were offering even more assistance than the federal government required. That meant that someone was already paying for the cost of treating people who didn't have health insurance. If we could get our hands on that money, and therefore redirect it to help the uninsured buy insurance instead and obtain treatment in the way that the vast majority of individuals did -- before acute conditions developed -- the cost of insuring everyone in the state might not be as expensive as I had feared.​
In the "60 Minutes" interview, Romney stressed that each state should address the problem of the uninsured through different means. But he didn't speak with the same alarm about the cost of emergency room care.

"Again, different states have different ways of doing that," Romney responded. "Some provide that care through clinics. Some provide the care through emergency rooms. In my state, we found a solution that worked for my state. But I wouldn't take what we did in Massachusetts and say to Texas, 'You've got to take the Massachusetts model.'"
Romney's efforts to limit emergency room care in Massachusetts were largely successful.

Six years after he signed health reform into law, visits to emergency rooms in Massachusetts are decreasing and the state has the highest rate of residents with health insurance.

Dr. Somava Stout, who helps oversee primary care for the Cambridge Health Alliance, told CBS in June, "You have people who before would get their diabetic care in the emergency room who instead are coming into primary care, taking care of their diabetes, not ending up hospitalized every three or every four months. I mean it's a huge difference."

Members don't see this ad.
 
I don't see what he said that was incorrect, or that would be cause for outrage. The emergency department is an option for the uninsured. He doesn't say that it's a good one, or that it's the way it should be. Just that it is. I really don't understand how "If we could get our hands on that money, and therefore redirect it to help the uninsured buy insurance instead and obtain treatment in the way that the vast majority of individuals did -- before acute conditions developed -- the cost of insuring everyone in the state might not be as expensive as I had feared," can be interpreted as "the uninsured can go to the emergency department, and that's good enough."

What he does say, however, is that he feels it's a state issue on how to provide care for its residents.

I think this is a lot more telling about the blatantly biased, poor quality work that the Huffington Post tries to pass off as journalism than about Romney's plans for healthcare. But why bother to report things fairly and completely when you can take a short soundbite, use it out of context, and twist things to be inflammatory?
 
Six years after he signed health reform into law, visits to emergency rooms in Massachusetts are decreasing and the state has the highest rate of residents with health insurance.
Really?
Researchers found a 4.1 percent increase in overall ED visits from 2006 to 2008 – 3.4 percent from 2006 to 2007 and 0.7 percent the following year. In comparison, there was a 4.6 percent increase in ED visits statewide according to data from the Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy. They found a 1.8 percent decrease in low-severity visits for the group affected by the reform law versus the comparison group.
Damn. That silly data getting in the way. Oh, they meant low-severity visits. Well maybe, just maybe, the newly insured are getting upcoded now that they're finally paying customers.
Also, from here
Still, insurance premiums in Massachusetts have increased from an average of $331 per month in 2006 to $401 per month in 2010.
"If we had to put health insurance into our company -- that would totally make us unprofitable," Montilio said. "It's almost seven percent of my gross."
With 70 employees - 30 full-time and 40 part-time - he calculates that complying with the mandate would cost him $300,000 per year in premiums. Instead, he chooses to pay the state's annual fines per employee, which for him amount to almost $20,000 a year.
Yet since the reform, overall health spending has risen from as a piece of the state budget pie, from 36 percent in 2006 to 43 percent in 2011, and Massachusetts spends $9,278 per person per year on health care, more than any other state.

And finally, ACEP doesn't like the statement either.
 
Last edited:
Top