Outside of that, like all investments renting a dwelling involves risks including the risk that you may not able to boot your tenet if they stop paying for a time.
I agree that this is a risk landlords must consider, but there is a big difference between ordinary investment risk (mispredicting future supply/demand/cost/etc.), or unforeseen accidents or "acts of god" (e.g. losing your rental property to a wildfire or flood), and the risk that some powerful third party will step in and prevent you from evicting someone squatting on your property. The first two cases are either your own fault or no-fault; the third case is a direct result of deliberate action by someone else, which means that they, not you, should be liable to repair the harm which they caused.
Is there? Your one example js weaker than you seem to think. For emergency room services, the law requires that for Medicare-participating hospitals. That's practically equivalent to a general requirement, but its legally distinct, and landlords don’t have a practical necessity to sell their services to the government as well as other customers.
And it's (generally) only mandatory when the patients condition is emergent, and the hospital is only required to stabilize them before discharging them. Not treat them indefinitely, or even treat/test for every presenting symptom they might have at the time.
Most states have similar eviction laws, giving renters 7-14 days to move out. After that, it's no longer an emergent condition.
In this case, however, the law was changed retroactively to an open-ended, tenant-gets-to-live-in-your-house-for-free. Hard to see how landlords should have factored the likelihood of that in.
If small investors were basing their calculations that the only risk is up to 90 days without rent... then yeah, they miscalculated the risks.
Succeeding in the real estate game is all about numbers. Lots of properties in a variety of locales spread the risk of one individual tenant bankrupting you.