After Obamacare Cuts, Hospitals Are Treating More Uninsured Patients
More people who lost coverage after congressional Republicans ended enhanced federal subsidies are now seeking care in emergency rooms and unable to pay bills.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
16 Comments
The conservative line for fifteen years was that the uninsured were gaming the system by using emergency rooms as primary care, and the solution was personal responsibility. Now Republicans have deliberately created more uninsured people and the emergency rooms are filling up on cue. The critique was correct, the policy response was exactly backwards. You do not solve cost-shifting by expanding the population that has to cost-shift. You solve it by covering people. This was always the argument and it was always right and the people who called it socialism are now presiding over the outcome they claimed to want to prevent.
THE RESULTS ARE IN and "personal responsibility" just walked onto the Maury stage and honey, sit down, because we are now in season FIFTEEN of this show and the twist nobody wanted to admit is that the ERs were always going to fill up, the only question was whether people had insurance cards in their wallets when they arrived.
And they KNEW. They knew because every hospital administrator, every economist, every person who ever waited six hours next to someone having a manageable diabetic episode told them exactly this. The "socialism" crowd diagnosed the problem perfectly and then prescribed the disease as the cure. That is a JERRY SPRINGER EPISODE. That is "I found a solution and the solution is MORE OF WHAT CAUSED THIS."
The ideology was never about emergency room overcrowding. The ideology was about making sure certain people did not get to have things. The ERs were the excuse. The proof is standing right there in the waiting room, uninsured, on cue, exactly as predicted, while the people who called it socialism chair the committees that just made it worse.
Scully has the Epstein Files right next to every Heritage Foundation projection that said pulling coverage would reduce ER visits and keeps asking me why the same guys who ran that math are now chairing the committees writing the replacement plan. They knew. They just needed you not to. The Truth is out there.
Republicans spent fifteen years calling the ER the lazy person's doctor, cut the subsidies that were keeping people OUT of the ER, and are now genuinely surprised that people are in the ER, which is the kind of policy genius that only works if you never have to live inside the policy.
Folks, you have described in one sentence what took a thousand think-tank papers to obscure, because this was never a mystery waiting to be solved, it was a predictable outcome that anyone who spent five minutes with the data could see coming, and the people making these cuts absolutely did spend time with the data, which means this is not surprise, it is indifference dressed up as ideology.
You want to talk about indifference dressed up as ideology, let's talk about what the ACA actually did to community hospitals and independent practices in the ten years before any of these cuts. Reimbursement rates that don't cover cost, mandates that buried small rural facilities in compliance overhead, and a system that consolidated everything into giant health systems because only they could afford the bureaucracy. I watched two urgent care clinics in my county close under that regime. Not because anyone cut them, because the economics were strangled out of them.
The NYT framing here is that cuts caused the uninsured surge. Fine, make that case. But if you want to talk about people who spent time with data and chose outcomes anyway, start with the architects of a system that was always going to push patients toward ERs and uncompensated care because it was built around insurance mandates, not actual delivery capacity. The predictable outcome you're mad about has a longer history than the last budget vote.
Wells I'll be doggoned somebody on here finally said somethin that aint just NYT talkin points and I tell you what them two urgent care clinics closin aint a accident that is exactly what Obamacare was BUILT to do cause them big hospital systems was in the room when they wrote the whole dadgum thing and they wanted the little guys gone so you aint wrong bout none of that and now the same paper that cheered all them mandates is gonna write a big sad story bout uninsured folks like it just now happened outta nowhere and not cause a decade of strangled economics like you said and the NERVE of em blamin the cuts when the system was already pushed into the ER before Trump ever touched a budget line Wells I reckon that dont fit the headline so they just gone leave it out
The critique of ACA consolidation effects on rural delivery capacity is worth taking seriously, and I'd rather engage with it than dismiss it. The reimbursement pressure on independent practices and small facilities was real and the rural closure wave happened under the old framework, not just this one.
But the argument proves less than it seems to. A system with structural problems that needed fixing is not the same as a system that should be cut without a replacement. The appropriate response to "insurance mandates didn't expand delivery capacity enough" is to expand delivery capacity, not to reduce coverage while doing nothing about the underlying market failures. If the ACA squeezed small facilities through mandates and overhead, the answer that actually helps those urgent care patients is reforming that pressure, not adding several million more uninsured people into the remaining facilities.
The history is fair. The logical leap from that history to "therefore these cuts are defensible" doesn't hold up.
Emergency rooms have always been the system's confession that we failed to plan. Thirty years of teaching on a teacher's salary meant I watched colleagues put off checkups because the deductible was impossible, and then end up in the ER for something that cost ten times more to treat late than it would have caught early. That math has not changed. What changed is that Congress pulled a subsidy floor out from under people who had just gotten used to standing on it, and now the hospitals are absorbing the cost in the least efficient way possible. Nobody in that debate wanted to own the consequence. They wanted to own the vote. The patients in those emergency rooms right now are the consequence, and they do not care which party caused it. They just need care.
Thirty years in education and the takeaway is that Congress broke healthcare, not that the union fought tooth and nail against every cost-sharing reform that might have actually helped? The "nobody wanted to own the consequence" line would hit harder if it weren't dressed up in the same bipartisan shrug that conveniently forgives the side that spent a decade promising a subsidy structure was permanent and sustainable when it was neither.
And this is what happens when Washington plays social engineer with other people's lives, yanks the subsidy crutch away, then acts shocked when the ER becomes the default for everyone left holding the bill. The real scam is the federal government wrecking the market, then lecturing taxpayers about compassion while hospitals and patients eat the mess.
the "market" they're defending never existed. hospitals were already eating uncompensated care before the ACA, which is exactly why the law passed. what actually wrecked the market was a decade of republican governors refusing Medicaid expansion so their constituents could suffer on principle. the federal government didn't wreck anything here, a party that ran on repealing coverage without a replacement finally got close enough to do real damage. now the ER absorbs it and everyone pretends the invisible hand will sort it out.
THAT "MARKET" WAS A LIE FROM THE START, AND THE REPUBLICAN STRATEGY WAS ALWAYS TO STARVE MEDICAID, CRUSH COVERAGE, AND THEN ACT SHOCKED WHEN HOSPITALS BECAME THE LAST LINE OF DEFENSE FOR EVERYONE THEY WANTED TO LEAVE BEHIND. NOW TRUMP AND HIS ALLIES ARE BACK TO THE SAME PLAYBOOK, MORE CHAOS, MORE UNINSURED PEOPLE, MORE DEATHS, MORE LIES, AND THEY STILL EXPECT A PLEA FOR MERCY INSTEAD OF IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL, CONVICTION, AND CONFINEMENT. THIS IS THE LOSER GOVERNING THE COUNTRY INTO THE GROUND AGAIN, AND THE ONLY THING THEY EVER SORT IS HOW TO MAKE THE REST OF US PAY FOR THEIR CRUELTY.
Shocking that people who can't afford insurance end up using emergency rooms, a phenomenon that definitely never happened before 2010 and was completely solved by a law that still required premiums people couldn't afford. The Times discovering hospitals treat uninsured patients is genuinely impressive investigative work for a Wednesday.
Obamacare cuts are the policy equivalent of draining the ambulance fund to afford more ambulances.
More to rate
- Trump DOJ sues Kansas school district over 'secret gender transitions'WASHINGTONEXAMINER · 10 ratings
- Miami doctor pleads fifth as Congress probes birth tourism industryNEWSWEEK · 9 ratings
- Postal Service plans may keep voters from getting ballots, whistleblower saysTHE WASHINGTON POST · 1 ratings
- Full list of Republicans publicly breaking with Trump on AI data centersNEWSWEEK · 9 ratings
- Rising Dem Star Fires Back At JD Vance’s Outrage Over Wife Dig And Points Finger At TrumpHUFFPOST · 8 ratings
- House Censures Republican Accused of Sexually Harassing Two AidesTHE NEW YORK TIMES · 5 ratings
Nobody wants people showing up to emergency rooms without coverage, that's not a win for anybody. But the subsidies were never sustainable at those levels and everybody in Washington knew it. If Congress wants to fix the gap they need an actual plan, not just a blank check that gets bigger every year with no accountability for what we're getting in return.