I think the idea being that generally, two people going to the same ER one being broke and the other being loaded are going to get a similar level of emergency care. Long term maybe not but you aren't going to get the bronze plan of gunshot care while the guy next to you is enjoying platinum.
I think most people believe its morally repugnant that your value as a human being is related to how much money you have. Because choosing to serve one person over another based on money rather than their medical need is exactly that.
Ie: I broke my toe and I have insurance, so I get ER treatment, but that guy who has no insurance and is internally bleeding to death from a street stabbing (and is hispanic, doesn't have insurance and maybe isn't american?) is pushed behind me in line. That is the real life scenario that at least one person is advocating here.
I agree, I think that ER's work more or less like that now (not necessarily the rest of the hospital), I'm concerned for the future this not always being the case.
I think as the governments become more starved (not made more efficient by reducing costs, starved by simply cutting funding without optimizing it logically) that important government services will have to replaced with tiered private companies. As regulations are removed, the same thing occurs.
What if a speed of ambulance was built into your insurance? How do you know what response time is right for you and your family (as it will be framed)?