However you feel about the ACA, arguments like this are not doing supporters any favors:
You cannot ask a 20-something, “What happens if you break your leg?” Hear her response of, “I intend to take personal responsibility for that.” Start in on the emergency-rooms-must-treat laws, then throw out, “The. . . ACA is designed to reduce that most expensive kind of treatment by incentivizing primary and preventive care, because emergency room bills add up fast, and certainly not all of those charges incurred . . . would or could be paid.”
True: ERs cannot refuse you because you are uninsured or cannot pay.
True: The young person that breaks their leg may not be able to pay their bills out of pocket.
False: Primary and/or preventive care has something to do with this example.
False: The ACA will somehow reduce “that most expensive kind of treatment” when someone suddenly breaks a bone.
The emergency room thing is true, and had the journalist presented the idea that paying for insurance will prevent unpaid bills from effectively being foisted on taxpayers outright, that’d be fine. Instead, we are introduced with, “ERs cannot refuse care” and led into incentivizing primary and preventive care… Sorry, is there a vaccine to prevent us from breaking bones? Because if so, I’d like that, please.
The only way this works is if we’re not talking about “young invincibles” and are instead talking about the elderly population prone to osteoporosis.