The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide emergency health care treatment to anyone needing it regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may not transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment except with the informed consent or stabilization of the patient or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment. Conservatives often point out that healthcare is not a right. But in a way, it actually is a right. Under the EMTALA act, a hospital cannot turn away a critically ill person, regardless of that persons ability to pay, and will receive no government compensation what so ever. The hospital of course does not really eat those costs. They incorporate it into the cost of doing buisness, and it gets passed along to the other patients who can afford to pay their bills, or insurance premiums. So here is an example of the federal government forcing a private institution to do buisness with individuals who cannot afford the services provided. The side effect is that hard working individuals are subsidizing the care of the poor. Would you say that EMTALA is unfair to a private buisness? Or the customers who have to make up the cost of the people the hospital had to treat who could not pay?
absolutely. if everyone now has health insurance, there's no need to force hospitals to eat anymore unpaid ER costs.
Agreed....those deciding to "Take the Fine", do not deserve to suck the teet of everyone else. Further incentive...like it or limp it.
Well. You have those people who have chosen not to buy insurance, and take the fine instead. So they would be left to die. You also have people in this country not FROM America. Tourists, imiigrants. Such things like that. What about them?
Interesting OP. Hospitals are not doctors therefore, they have no mandate to treat the sick. Doctors, however, take an oath, therefore, without the EMTALA, it would be the doctor (who refused to treat) who would be exposed to the liability of a lawsuit instead of the hospital.
I happen to agree with you. I must say that I am surprised by the results of the poll. I expected many more conservatives to defend a hospitals right not not treat those whom they dont want to.
I applaud the fact that you are at least consistent in your Catholic beliefs. May not agree with you on everything, but I respect you.
I would repeal it IF the ACA is fully enacted in all states and corrections made, including expanded Medicaid and if people opt out add a stick if they do they should not be able to discharge the Medical Debt by bankruptcy. Seems to me this law is not needed if we have a good broad ability get health care coverage.
Well thank you. I appreciate the fact that you respect me. - - - Updated - - - I am a conservative and I don't believe hospitals have a right to treat those whom they don't want to. I do believe they have a right to choose not to perform certain "services" such as abortion or sterilization though.
