That was one of the arguments for the ACA. Hospital emergency rooms are a very expensive way to treat minor problems, and an very ineffective way to treat chronic ones. This is why each homeless person in SF costs the medical system about $10K a year.

Prior to 1986, hospitals were not required to treat the uninsured, but most nonprofit hospitals did anyway.[1] For-profit hospitals tried to dump them on nonprofit and charity institutions. The 1986 law makes all hospitals that take any Federal funding treat uninsured people with emergency conditions.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_an...

Or have a public option...

A public option is just a mandate by another name, it has to be paid for by higher taxes: still a mandate. But yes, we should do it that way.

Yes, taxes would go up, but would most people really notice? You are basically shifting from paying a premium to a private insurer to paying a tax to the government. It's kinda six one half dozen the other.

Thank joe Lieberman (a democrat) for why we don't.

Lieberman was an independent, though he caucused with the democrats.

Yes, but not always. He opposed the government option. Quoting the article [0]:

> ... "if the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage." In other words, Lieberman will support a filibuster. "I can't see a way in which I could vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated-run insurance company," Lieberman said.

[0] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/prescription...