The The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) provides for Emergency treatment for those who need it, something none of us (or at least I hope none of us) would consider denying to someone, the “Leave the accident victim at the side of the road” viewpoint.
However, if a person comes in with no insurance to a hospital, and wants a skin tumor removed, there is no federal requirement to do so.
If someone has no insurance, they can apply for medicaid if they are below a certain income, and if they are above a certain income, they can arrange a payment plan for services rendered.
Additionally, the hospital providing the care can draw from a fund of money provided by the federal government for the purpose of giving aid to uninsured patients, but there is no requirement that they attempt to draw on those funds. Each institution can simply refuse to participate.
But most institutions do, because invariably in the course of things, uninsured patients DO enter into the territory of non-emergent care, and most hospitals do wish to be able to draw on it.
That is not the issue at hand, though. The issue is the definition of non-emergent care as being emergent for the purposes of expanding the pool of eligible people, thus drawing us one step closer to socialized health care.
Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it.