>Why should hospitals be forced to provide care to sick people? I mean this 100% seriously, what would you do if hospitals just straight up refused patients that were expensive or annoying to treat focusing entirely on “profitable medicine?”

They should not, unless hospitals have the power to tax. Or the hospital is getting reimbursed by the government.

>“Well the government should provide that transportation then.” — They are via this regulation.

Politicians like to do it via mandates for businesses because they can avoid being responsible for problems and have a convenient third party to blame. It also avoids them having to increase taxes.

That is exactly why most hospitals are required to take sick patients. The Emergency Medical Treatment And Labor Act requires hospitals that accept Medicare (most of them) to provide (minimal) treatment to any patient that shows up.

That works, since the hospital is getting paid for it by society (although via health insurance companies via the now neutered individual mandate to purchase health insurance).

The important thing is the price for a hospital being able to provide highly qualified team of workers and equipment 24/7 to treat patients should not be obfuscated. It is valuable information for how many more hospitals/doctors/research/ whatever is needed and which kind of work society should incentivize people to do.