4 ms·

Or the opposite approach - stop mandating hospitals must accept any patient, regardless of their ability to pay. I bet hospitals would all of a sudden become af

• Klinky 4y ago
  Certain procedures are expensive & complicated regardless. Someone having a heart attack, stroke or severe COVID, would require extensive care. If you're okay letting such patients just die due to lack of funds, then this concept might work. Ethically & morally deplorable perhaps, but honest towards the goals of brutalistic capitalism.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• thephyber 4y ago
  "hospitals" aren't required to do that. Only emergency rooms are[1]. The point: not all hospitals have emergency rooms. And the problem is less about what you claim (although some of the claim is valid). The core problem with required/not-required dichotomy is that cheap preventative care visits are not required, but expensive emergency care is, hence the average cost approaches the latter as people substitute the former for the latter. > In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay.[1] [1] https://www.cms.gov/regulations-and-guidance/legislation/emtala https://www.cms.gov/regulations-and-guidance/legislation/emt...