CDR: Re: why should it be trusted?

[petro]

>At 10:35 PM -0700 10/22/00, Nathan Saper wrote:
>>
>>This is true in theory.  However, from what I have read, it appears
>>that the care given to these people is far from the quality of care
>>given to those who can pay.  Also, many diseases require very
>>expensive treatments, and I do not believe the hospitals are required
>>to pay for these.
>
>
>As I wrote in my previous article, IT IS NOT TRUE that private 
>hospitals must accept all those who appear at their doorstep. This 
>would be a "taking," and is not constitutionally permissable.
>
>It may be that _some_ private hospitals take in _some_ emergency 
>room cases, but they are not "required" to.

	This may have been a state law in Missouri, but I swear I 
heard reference to a similar law in Illinois. I would be surprised 
that it was not the case in the peoples republic of California.

	*ALL* hospitals are required to provide at least 
stabilization and transport to an appropriate facility to critically 
wounded or ill patients.

	The are not required to admit them for inpatient treatment, 
but they are not allowed to let them die in the street either.

	These kinds of laws are good in at least one respect--they 
make sure that if you forget your insurance credentials, or are 
otherwise unable to present them, you get treated anyway.
-- 
A quote from Petro's Archives:
**********************************************
"We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech."
--Dr. Kathleen Dixon,
Director of Women s Studies,
Bowling Green State University