But that's your problem, not his: the government passed a law requiring hospitals to treat the indigent. Such care is not free: the law forces others to pay for the cost of that emergency treatment -- or, more commonly, for the non-emergency treatment by people who use the ER as their doctor's office.
Are you for or against that law?
The reason an aspirin costs multiples of what it would cost to buy a bottle of them is the result of treating those indigent. The hospital charges more to the other patients who can pay to recover the costs of those who skip out on their bill. In that way, patients who can pay take up the fiscal slack those who can't pay leave.
It has been that way all along, and you will find that happens in retail stores, raising prices (actually, just factored in) to compensate for breakage, spoilage, and theft.
Many of the non-emergency people who use the ER as a doctor's office are medicaid folks, and we're paying for them out of the kindness of the IRS now. We don't really get any choice in the matter, so that doesn't amount to charity.
There is a big difference between being part of the chain gang picking up litter and part of a volunteer group who adopted a section of highway. The former often resent being there in bondage, while the latter take pride in what they accomplish, not just because it looks better, but because they willingly did it.
It is a pity that distinction is lost on you, but you are professing that the ends justify the means, whatever means, where there are those of us who firmly believe how those ends are accomplished means something, too.
Your lack of faith in the goodness of your fellow humans is duly noted, along with your desire to rob people of the opportunity to feel good about doing things voluntarily to assist those who are in need..