The cost of people not being to afford basic care is also borne by everyone else.

I do not understand why the US can't join most of the western world in instituting single-payer public healthcare. It would be a huge boon for small business and startups, who would no longer have to factor in medical benefits into their compensation structure and whose owners would no longer have to risk being uninsured for an extended period when they start the business.

Moreover, it's the morally right thing to do. It's shameful that the world's premier economic superpower does such a poor job of looking after its most vulnerable citizens.

The reason is relatively simple: approximately half of the electorate and half of our political system is caught in a feedback loop opposing public health care. Lots of voters are convinced that public health care is a disaster. One of our two major parties wins votes by accommodating that. Further, that party ensures votes in the future by pushing misinformation which helps convince more voters.

Until and unless we can get people to examine the facts, this will continue.

58% of Americans support federally funded universal health care, including 40% of Republicans:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-...

Opposition comes from the wealthy, whose taxes would go up, and insurance company execs (and employees) since it keeps them in business.

Fascinating! I had no idea this was supported by so many Republicans. Thanks for sharing. If we repealed ACA and replaced it with single payer I'd be so happy...

"Lots of voters are convinced public health care is a disaster."

Maybe we could, I dunno, create a government run health care system to show everyone just how super-awesome healthcare can be when DC runs it. We need a demographic... hummm, how about retired military? We'll create a healthcare system for ex-military and their families, show everyone how well these things work, and then the public will be convinced that... oh, wait!

We could also look at the many examples from other countries. Too bad so many Americans are convinced we're somehow special and it can't be done for us.

Because it's COMMUNISM!!!

/sarcasm

It sounds like you're implying that you shouldn't have to pay to help those people.

He's probably not smart enough to realize that a sick person won't be turned away by the hospital, and that the care they receive will end up going into collections when they fail to pay. The people who pay for medical care at the hospital will end up eating the cost of people who can't afford it, regardless, and you get all the administrative costs associated with the collection effort as the cherry on top.

Hospitals can't leave a person with a bullet hole in their stomach to bleed out, but they are under no obligation to provide, for example, chemotherapy to a cancer patient, or a kidney transplant.

So, no, you can't just walk into a hospital and get the same care you would if you actually had insurance, and then just stiff them with the bill later.

Yes, you can, for many, many maladies.

People without insurance don't go to hospitals. They don't go to doctors for routine checkups. They don't go to doctors to deal with chronic conditions. They go to ERs because they can't afford healthcare, but they know that the hospitals can afford their emergencies.

Of course people without insurance go to ERs. That's not going to help you if you have, for example, Type 1 diabetes and need daily insulin and test strips. The ER isn't going to send you home with 1000 strips and a half dozen vials of humalog.

So the "solution" on offer for our "problem" of having to insure diabetes sufferers is that if you have Type 1 diabetes but don't have a nice job, you should just die quietly?

  the hospitals can afford their emergencies

No, it's because the ER is legally obligated to treat, regardless of ability to pay. ERs in urban areas are generally money losers.

For example, Kaiser's huge new Santa Clara (CA) complex kept its ER from opening until the very day they closed the ER at the prior site on Kiely. There are fewer ERs in the San Jose area than there were 200,000 people ago.

Yes, but the simple fact of the matter is that the hospital wouldn't be in business if they couldn't afford to provide the care. So the care is going to be administered ANYWAY, at a much greater cost than it should have been, because people wait until their problems blow up into emergencies before seeking care.