I just found this alarming article

[Roland]

I have a question about US healthcare.  What happens when an uninsured US citizen gets diagnosed with a life-threatening, yet treatable, disease?  If the person cannot afford treatment, is treatment withheld?  What about non-life-threatening things, like broken bones and such?
[right][snapback]66714[/snapback][/right]

Interesting question. I have mild experience with this (I haven't had any form of "health" insurance for YEARS, but then I've needed hospitalization all of twice in my life, and only once was I not covered by insurance), and can say from experience that I was not turned away due to not having insurance. I didn't mention that paying for such a procedure as mine was going to be problematic, but they never asked.

Some background, before I go any further. At one point, I impaled my hand on a sword I own. It was some freak accident that occurred late at night. I found myself with no bandages of any kind, so I took a trip to the local pharmacy, where I was ordered to go to the hospital (after about 15 minutes of arguing). I was seen, treated (if that's what you can call it; I wish I knew then what I know now about that hospital, but so be it), and released within two hours, I'd say. The bill came several months later, to the tune of about two thousand dollars, IIRC. Two separate bills, actually, IIRC, each about a grand - one for the hospital services, and one for the doctor's services, if you can believe that. What did I have done? Some local anaesthesia, injected into the wound through a needle (not even injected; just squirted into it :P), a bit of movement testing to make sure I still had my motor skills, and about 4 badly placed stitches. Then they wrapped my hand, and then I was off. And they had the gall to charge me about two thousand dollars for that, merely because I had no insurance.

Never was there a point where I was refused service, although mine was minimal. I just asked my g/f, since she's had more direct experience with hospitals than I, and she believes, to the best of her knowledge, that so long as the hospital is government-funded a patient cannot be turned away. I happen to know for a fact that, if the treatment is necessary to keep the person alive in the immediate present, said patient cannot be turned away, financial stability or no. However, if one was diagnosed with, say, cancer, and their life expectancy without treatment was 6 months (just as an example), I DO believe that a hospital can turn away a patient. A government-funded facility may not be able to, but a privately owned hospital surely could. However, as I said already, someone in need of immediate emergency care cannot be turned away, regardless of what kind of hospital it is. That does not stop people from going to the hospital when they can't afford it, life-threatening or no, however.

Sooner or later, the bill has to be payed, and if the patient can't pay, the hospital will find someone connected to the patient who can, including family. It's also like that with automobile accidents, lawsuits, etc. - if the person being sued, etc. cannot afford the costs leveled against them, family members will be held responsible to make up the rest. But that's a different issue entirely.

I hope that clears things up, and I hope I didn't get anything wrong in my statements. I'm sure one of the other U.S. residents here will correct me if I am wrong.