Only have time for a short reply, but it seems you didn't read the article and you are not familiar with the debate.
ER rooms have a large number of patients who are there to deal with non emergency issues. That raises rates for insurance and clogs up emergency room, slowing the ability to deal with real emergencies. People coming in with a cold getting others sick, instead of seeing a regular doctor. The doctor is far cheaper (4 to 5 times cheaper) and actually equiped to deal with that type of care.
It saves the patient money and it saves wait time in the ER.
Under Tenncare and Masscare, the basis for the ACA there was a large increase of the use of the ER system and now due to legislation they can't turn non emergencies away. If you walk into 1 hospital they can't defer you to one the may better handle your needs or be cheaper to care for.
The legislator in the article worked in the ER, and they know this.
Saving people time and money, reducing the cost of insurance and allowing people to get emergency care faster. This is win-win.
Your source material counters your position. This is a smart decision that helps people with money and improves care. Unless you think clogged up ER rooms and the highest possible bills to deal with a cold is the better way.
Now, here is the rub. You complained about being wrongly called an asshole, stating that you can't understand the other side, but this is poor debating and work on your part as I see it. Didn't read the source, doesn't understand the materials, makes counter intuitive, shoot just plain wrong and insulting conclusions and judgements with nothing to factually back it up because your source material is counter to your conclusion.
Did you ever read how to win friends and influence people? This all seems very counter to it. ;)