Is there a hospital in the United States that turns away a patient. No, it is against the law.
They are required under EMTALA to provide "emergency" care. Outside a few oncological emergencies there are very few cancer related things that will get you treated in the emergency room. You will not get chemotherapy, likely, if you don't have insurance unless you can convince the hospital to give you some charity care.
Corporate Personhood has a very long and sorted history in the U.S.
Promise I am not being a jerk, but it is sordid. I completely agree with the rest of the story.
Nearly every job requires a BS or BA...even if they don't care which subject.
This is just wrong, IMO. IMO college is not trade school (not that there is anything wrong with trade school), but it has been turned into one by this notion that pretty much any job that is not Jiffy Lube or the Quickie Mart requires a college degree. There was some research published recently about gains in knowledge and critical thinking skills, this was the conclusion:
Students majoring in business, education, social work and communications showed the least gains in learning. However, the authors note that their findings don't preclude the possibility that such students "are developing subject-specific or occupationally relevant skills."
In other words, there were learning "subject specific" or occupationally relevant skills", we have a name for a program like this -- trade school.
Students who majored in the traditional liberal arts — including the social sciences, humanities, natural sciences and mathematics — showed significantly greater gains over time than other students in critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing skills.
Aside from the obvious gains those who have vested interest in alternative energy have what do those scientists who feel global warming is man made have to gain? What are the motives? The flip side is obvious, the fossil fuel industry stands to lose trillions of dollars if anthropogenic climate change is the real deal. I have always been a pragmatist. The logic goes something like this:
1. Everyone knows that fossil fuels are a finite resource whose peak availability may have just passed, is happening now or will happen reasonably soon (decades not centuries, likely)
2. There is a possibility that fossil fuel use is contributing to potentially catastrophic weather pattern shifts on the only habitable and reachable planet we know of in the universe.
3. Since we know this weaning is going to happen sooner of later, why not start (seriously) now.
There is no easy weaning in some industry. Organic solvents aren't going to be replaced by a commercially available synthetic anytime soon. This is important if you like medicine. Next, there aren't any alternative shipping/flight options available on the horizon for commerce. So we need reserve for commercial entities.
Thoughts?
IF I HAD A MINE SHAFT, I don't think I would just abandon it. There's got to be a better way. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.