Analyze

This policy was received in good light by the public for the most part. Patients were only to benefit from this, especially those who lacked insurance. Even those with insurance didn't have to waste time proving it any longer, they were treated and stabilized and insurance issues and payment were brought up later. Any ethically sound doctors, such as the ones working in hospitals that were already implementing the actions set forth by EMTALA (before it was law) had no issues with EMTALA. No doctor should have any issues with it due to their duty to act as well as ethical and moral standards they should be holding themselves up to, written in their oath they took to become doctor. The only people that would stand to receive this act negatively would be the doctors who were actively turning away patients in need, who are clearly morally compromised. Yet, media, patients, a majority of doctors and staff found and received this act positively or with little reservation.

This is seen as a good start to a major problem that needs far more assistance and advancement. People cite that meeting eligibility requirements are very hard and there are people that make more money than allowed to qualify, but still cannot afford mental health treatment. This policy is appreciated in a certain capacity, yet it is very apparent that people want more and think more help is needed. Of course, you will always have an opposing side when it comes to politics and there are people who think this is the perfect amount of assistance and nothing else is needed.