against the right to a lawyer.

most defense lawyers I've met are liberals..so you're probably right..

or the treatment too expensive..

what fucking dreamland do you inhabit???

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act passed in 1986

That is considered a right to emergency medical care or even if you have just a cold or flu or damn runny nose.

Can't be refused at an ER


The OP's post is about rights
I just provided one by mandated by law. Get a clue before opening your yap .........okay

because they do not have health insurance......DO YOU???

The OP's post was about legal rights.

"we should have a right to a doctor when sick"

law or no fucking law - plenty of them DIE because of it

My post was legally correct in responding to the OP's
statement .

have a nice night

you do not fool me for ONE SECOND

Hurt my knee. Went to ER. They took an X-Ray and said no broken bones, could be a torn ligament, follow up at a knee specialist or at your primary care. If you don't have insurance in case case I think you will be screwed because you need an MRI, but the ER will not do it in that case. If it turns out you need ongoing physical therapy, or even surgery to repair a torn ligament, these are some things an ER will not do.

you HAVE to be - no one else can be that dimwitted

I can't help on that.
I'm sorry

You just won the argument.

Have a nice night.

They have no legal obligation to treat sick people. They WILL treat those in immediate danger of dying, but as soon as they are stabilized they are sent packing. Still dying, just a wee bit slower than before.

And further you might want to watch your mouth a little better. You have an insolent air about you. There is no need for you to be so uncivil, especially when you're wrong.

I was not the aggressor but I will respond as I was responded to by the poster.

Because even though you can't be refused at an ER, you can be hounded indefinitely for the fees, and turned over to a collection agency and credit ruined for non-payment. And doctors are not required to do pro-bono work, at least I don't think they are.

As far as the comparison itself, I am not really sure we should use it. Access to medical care should be considered as part of our right to life. And anyone claiming to be pro-life should really support universal health care.

Not sure what to call it but you can go by what it represents: Universal Single Payer Health Care.

Like Medicare for All...

A non-profit entity (similar to Medicare and Social Security) runs America's health care system - like
a Health Security Administration.

The providers operate independently, i.e private sector providers. And as with all commerce, Congress
has the right to regulate health care.

The main point - get rid of the health insurance middlemen.

It is not at all obvious just because you have a right to a legal defense when the government, with infinitely more resources, decides to bring a criminal charge against you. Sorry but I think that argument fails.

"when in trouble" There are many, many types of legal trouble that don't get you a free lawyer. You only have the right to a lawyer when your liberty interest is threatened, ie., when you face the possibility of incarceration for a non-trivial length of time. So, although I'd prefer socialized medicine too, your analogy will not get us there.

It is a right by law

go to the emergency room? who are you - Mitt fucking Romney???

One has always (200+ years) had the right to hire an attorney and have them in court. It is only a relatively recent interpretation that it means that indigent (poor) people can have a public defender appointed on their behalf.

You have a right to a lawyer when the government places you in "jeopardy" (arrests you, charges you, convicts you).

That's different from health care because when you get ill (sickness or accident) it is not as a direct government action. (Side effects and negligence notwithstanding)