Gene wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:06:00 -0400, H the K
wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:03:02 -0400, BAR wrote:


I thought they weren't allowed to deny you care if you couldn't or
wouldn't pay for it.
Yeah, but what is care? It may vary by state, but I believe they only
have to stabilize you.

That is correct...if that.

Harry is correct.

I first came across this when Rush declared that all must be treated
for free and I thought that was the case. I then learned that one must
only be "stabilized" and that many hospitals actually didn't reach
even that standard of care. This led to a spate of lawsuits which
culminated in the pursuit of "anti-dumping" laws.

Contrary to some assertions here, if America falls as the Roman Empire
did, I really think that it is more about having to legislate morality
than anything else.... really.

"Stabilization" nonsense is especially true for poor people suffering
from serious mental health issues or drug addiction. A hospital with
facilities for treating either (and not all hospitals do), might take a
suicidal person in for a couple of days and then, if that person says he
is not feeling like killing himself at that moment, he is discharged. Of
course, the next day he might feel suicidal again, and kill himself.
Even if you have decent health insurance, the time you are allowed to
stay in a treatment facility usually is very, very limited. In many
communities, there are absolutely no openings at treatment facilities
for months at a time for addicts or alcoholics who want help *if* those
troubled folks have no money or insurance.

The "right" has been spreading this nonsense about availability of
treatment for decades.