harpy...as a couple others have noted, most hospitals do provide emergency care...which is all I claimed. But in some areas, the load is such that the treatment is slow, perfunctory, and often does not address the long-term situation.

Amos managed to enlarge on my other point in answer to SH...it is not a matter of basic care being a right, but whether it is a good idea! I am rather tired of pompous, smug folks who are doing ok and HAVE health insurance declaring that anyone who didn't 'manage' like they did must be freeloaders and lazy.
   We were without insurance for a couple of years because of exhorbitant prices and sudden changes in the job market...until we were shown a group plan we could just 'barely' afford...and it saved my wife's life! We managed to dig up the premiums for a few years by hard work and some amazing help from friends so that she could continue to be treated. Now we are both over 62 and able to relax very slightly, though the care is limited.
(I just got a bill for $99 (NON-covered)for a 10 minute follow-up LOOK at my right eye that involved only eye drops and a flashlight. I had eye treatment while I had full insurance, and had no idea what it would cost me to simply ask him if the problem I was having was serious. That $99 is a big bite out of the budget these days..)

I think the entire medical mal-practice insurance rules need to be totally re-done, so that rates can be reduced and marginally profitable medical practices can be revived.

This situation today is just widening the gap further between the haves and have-nots...and a lot of the "haves" simply don't care what happens to those below the line.