quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
I would have argument with the idea of not requiring insurance if those without insurance were denied care. Every time. Say you fall off a ladder at your house, you go to the ER and cant provide proof of ability to pay. you go home to die. Then, everyone you know will then go out and buy insurance.
This is why we have EMTLA, which is a program brought about under the previous administration that basically says anyone who comes into the EER, in an emergent situation, MUST be taken care of, regardless of whether or not they can pay the bill. After they are stabilized, then further treatment can be arranged according to what they want and or can afford. But in every case, in an emergency they must be cared for....it is a falacy to believe otherwise. No one in this country is denied emergent care if they cannot pay for it. They cannot be turned away or sent elsewhere, it is against the law. However, if it is not an emergency, and can be taken care of in a physician's office, or the health department, the ER cannot be expected, nor should they be required, to take care of the matter.
And PR is right, Weiner thinks he knows what is good enough for everyone else, but does not plan to use it himself. A typical liberalist response.