Come on -- you know that's an untruthful use of semantics. Technically speaking, everyone has access to health care. Technically speaking, I have access to purchase Apple or Microsoft.
It's just a matter of having the money to do it, right?
I heard this BS argument when ACA was first passed -- "people had access to health care before, all they had to do was go to the ER." While technically true on one front, it's bullshit. If I'm dirt poor, have no insurance, and break my arm, I could go to the ER, have it set, etc. and they have to take care of it. They're still going to bill me and if I can't afford it my credit is shot, unless they're merciful and write it off (driving up the costs for everyone else in the process...). If I need follow up care, physical therapy, etc., they're not even going to book the appointment without ability to pay.
But that again gets back to my initial point -- anyone who argues for ACA as the answer or repealing and replacing ACA as the answer is being 100% disingenuous. At least her claim has truth to it and I'd bet with her background & perspective she'd be more amenable to an actual solution to the root problem than the vast majority of the lot in D.C.
Duffy wrote:
Quote:
If ACA is repealed, those are the ones who would lose access to coverage...
Even if that were true (it isn't), lack of health
insurance does not mean you lose access to health
care.