The article suggests that this measure is only opposed by healthcare incumbents, because it threatens their profits. The comments also show a critical source o

The article suggests that this measure is only opposed by healthcare incumbents, because it threatens their profits. The comments also show a critical source of opposition that the article doesn't mention: political anger about 'entitlements'. Many or perhaps even most Americans actually won't agree that it's better if people don't have to go into the hospital in the first place - if they understand that the way of getting that is to offer more care to people at taxpayer expense - even if the expense to taxpayers is actually less. It's unjust or unfair, you see, because the other guy is getting something for free and his children should be paying for the nurse to come by once a month, not me. As an ordinary "main street" American, maybe I would rather see him denied that preventive care, even if it means higher costs in the end, in order to avoid the loathsome outcome that I am paying part of his bill. I'd really rather not pay for his emergency care either (and some comments in this thread have suggested the same, that we will save more money by not at all covering people who are at risk), but that's hard to push politically. So we will pay for expensive emergency care, because we don't really have a choice. But we'll be damned if we'll pay for preventive care which doesn't seem urgently necessary.