[TomGuy]

Additional visits will not be covered, and patients may be billed for that care.

Dubious.

First, medical facilities cannot/will not deny service, emergency or otherwise. The resulting lawsuits would bankrupt them.

Second, patients may be billed, but being Medicaid-eligible indicates their resources are limited. Thus, the patients could refuse to pay. So, who makes up the difference? Taxpayers via subsidies to pay for the uncollected amounts.

==

This is one of those 'looks good on paper' proposals that, ultimately, will not solve anything.

[Jim Noble]

First, medical facilities cannot/will not deny service, emergency or otherwise. The resulting lawsuits would bankrupt them.

Actually, turning them away is a Federal crime.

Lawsuits are a minor problem, compared to EMTALA.

[PapaBear3625]

Second, patients may be billed, but being Medicaid-eligible indicates their resources are limited. Thus, the patients could refuse to pay. So, who makes up the difference? Taxpayers via subsidies to pay for the uncollected amounts.

For those who are on welfare, instead of billing, simply deduct the amount from their next month's welfare or food stamp allocation. But that would make to much sense and would be too effective, so the lawyers would bar that.