When first visiting the US many years ago I was warned always to carry with me proof of insurance, for otherwise a hospital might not treat me until I could provide some proof that I could pay.

I wonder if that was true, whether it's still true, and what the situation really was or is.

In the US, a hospital is required to give you emergency treatment first, and figure out how you're going to pay later. If you don't have insurance coverage, that can mean ruinous bills, but no, they don't check before treating you in an emergency situation. For non-emergency stuff, yes, you need to pay or present insurance info up front.

Of course, your definition of emergency might not match the hospitals.

Actually, no - a hospital emergency room in the US has to provide you any needed medical care - full stop.

Interesting- do you have a source for this? Everything I have found states otherwise- for example- https://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/ph/rpt/2003-R-0621.htm

It's important to understand the difference between "any medical care you want" and "any emergency medical care you need". Emergency is the key word there, and it's generally applied in a fairly common sense way. (When it comes to payment things are far more screwed up in the US, but for "not denying care" it's pretty straightforward.)

djrogers said "hospital emergency room in the US has to provide you any needed medical care - full stop."

That is what I was replying to in the immediate parent comment.

As to your comment- even if the hospitals definition of emergency is generally 'common sense', it may differ from ones expectations. Further, it seems (I may be wrong) that emergency rooms are given a great deal of leeway especially in edge cases that may not be general, but probably occur more often than one might expect.

Hasn't been true for ages - at least as long as I've lived in the US (since 1990). Hospitals are required to give emergency medical service regardless of insurance or proof of ability to pay if you show up in the ER. An unintended side-effect of that is that it's sadly not at all uncommon for people to show up to the ER for non-emergency services, then stick the public or the hospital with their bill if they can't pay it.

> Hospitals are required to give emergency medical service regardless of insurance or proof of ability to pay if you show up in the ER.

Hospitals (that take Medicare payments) are required to screen for emergency medical conditions and provide treatment to stabilize any emergency conditions found through the screening if you present at an ER; they are not required to either screen for and diagnose or treat any other conditions.

> An unintended side-effect of that is that it's sadly not at all uncommon for people to show up to the ER for non-emergency services, then stick the public or the hospital with their bill if they can't pay it.

Note that hospitals are not required to screen for, diagnose, or treat non-emergency conditions without regard to ability to pay when a patient presents at an ER.

Well, if the person doesn't have money who is going to pay for the bills? Medicine costs money.

That's what a society is for: mutual help.

Some societies have a tree structure with "help" flowing only one way... as we can see from this and other articles (also about China), this is not actually a natural condition but a consequence of the rules (laws) in the society.