In staking out their position, many conservatives and most libertarians convey health care as a privilege, not a right. Fair enough.
EMTALA, a federal law, is explicit, and rightfully gives every individual (including non-citizens) the ability to get emergency and acute care until stable. Individuals will barter, negotiate (sometimes at 10 cents on the dollar) or walk away from their bills. Again, this is a right federal law guarantees.
Has any state governor, policy figure of import, or academic reconciled these two concepts, mainly, one can stake out a grand platform of opt out, yet embedded in that platform is a back door to both receive life saving care, and also have the ability to escape or moderate payment.
I do understand that some will risk crushing debt and then preserve their credit and reputation and pay up. I will give those folks a pass, but they are likely the minority, ie, those that can pay 100% full freight into a hospital bill.
However, this disconnect must be explained. I hardly doubt any elimination of the individual mandate will offer the option of simultaneously expunging EMTALA from the books.
Would Gov’s Pawlenty or Perry attempt to offer an opinion on this matter? I would even take a second rate op-ed columnists’ fair shot. You dont want the mandate. Fine. Lets make “inactivity” mean what it really implies.