[tomjen3]

I love how they preempt the economy issue by saying that it is cheaper to house them than it is to treat them. Wouldn't it be even cheaper to put a limit on how much you can owe the public before you are turned away at the er? After all, this is the money that comes from the insurance premiums that have exploded recently.

[arethuza]

I believe that it was Mahatma Ghandi who said "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."

[tomjen3]

He said a lot of things, including suggesting that jews went to the ovens voluntary (as some sort of protest against the Nazies). He may have his hearth in the right place, but I wouldn't take advice from him.

[showerst]

It would be cheaper, but not acceptable to the vast majority of the public.

[amalcon]

The fundamental problem with this is that figuring out how much you owe the public takes time. If I'm found passed out on the street (say, due to a stroke, or even just from slipping and hitting my head), I'd prefer to be treated immediately, and we'll work out payment after.

There's also the problem that a significant portion of these costs (though likely not the majority) are incurred on law enforcement, not on medical care. Simply denying law enforcement is only going to make the problem worse.