However, access can be compared to areas that which do not have it. For example, if I was in northern India and get injured, I do not have access to emergency

However, access can be compared to areas that which do not have it. For example, if I was in northern India and get injured, I do not have access to emergency room care. Nor do I have access to a hospital. I may have access to a local doctor, but (s)he may have very limited tools and even less amount of drugs to work with. If I am injured in this country, I do have a reasonable access to emergent care. But the costs are exorbitant to the point that many people default on those bills. And then I would also go to the argument that there is no informed consent on the bills for treatments. We, as a public, are supposed to go in for a problem and choose the appropriate solution with no regard for cost. Our solution is that we then get the "bill we deserve". There is no breakdown for "issue X is average cost Y". In choosing what treatments can potentially cause harm, we have the idea of informed consent. We cannot make a choice, medically speaking, unless we know both the pros and cons of said argument. This somehow, does not transfer over to harms of money and reduction on standard of life. That's criminal. (And yes, I chose the Mayo clinic because they are a top of the line medical center. And they charge for it as well, when the client can bear it or has good insurance. I also know they do a great deal of charity work.)