Signing away your constitutional rights to see a Dr

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You don't have a constitutional right to go to court to sue your doctor, so whoever wrote that is just a bad lawyer. Arbitration agreements are increasingly popular for a lot of reason, including that our court system is pretty dysfunctional. There's really complicated laws about when they are enforceable.

+1. The US constitution does not include a right to sue. I guess a state constitution might.

I used to have to read website terms and conditions for work and a surprising number of them say it's illegal to view the website without permission. People write all kinds of crazy stuff because it sounds lawyery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is common.

I get it, to be honest. My Dad went through a lawsuit that eventually got dismissed but even that was a huge time suck for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is common.

No its not. And OP should NOT sign it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does constitutional right mean something different in that context?

Interesting. Is suing for malpractice a constitutional right?

The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in virtually all civil cases where the plaintiff is seeking money damages. All of the posters scoffing that there's no constitutional right at issue here are dipshits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does constitutional right mean something different in that context?

Interesting. Is suing for malpractice a constitutional right?

The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in virtually all civil cases where the plaintiff is seeking money damages. All of the posters scoffing that there's no constitutional right at issue here are dipshits.

In federal court, sure.

I suppose OP could be going to the VA. She didn’t specify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is common.

No it’s not. And OP should NOT sign it.

It is. Many, many companies include binding arbitration in the terms and conditions of service that no one reads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are often arbitration clauses in agreements. People just
Don’t tend to notice them or even read them. They are enforceable. Here’s the thing. In America you have no right to healthcare except stabilization in an ER.

Is stabilization in an ER really a “right”? It used to not be, when did that become the case? Just curious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does constitutional right mean something different in that context?

Interesting. Is suing for malpractice a constitutional right?

The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in virtually all civil cases where the plaintiff is seeking money damages. All of the posters scoffing that there's no constitutional right at issue here are dipshits.

In federal court, sure.

I suppose OP could be going to the VA. She didn’t specify.

Might I introduce you to the concept of diversity jurisdiction.

[Anonymous]

lol no. Find a new Dr.

[Anonymous]

They’re allowed to set the terms on which they will provide service, and you are allowed to refuse them. Courts generally enforce these provisions unless there are no other options (ie you don’t have a choice).

[Anonymous]

if you have to actually sign it vs type your name just sign "I don't agree" in script. I am not a lawyer so don't know if that actually works but that is what I do

[Anonymous]

What’s wrong with arbitration? It’s likely easier for you to bring a claim that way.

And yes, it’s enforceable and yes, arbitration clauses are common

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are often arbitration clauses in agreements. People just
Don’t tend to notice them or even read them. They are enforceable. Here’s the thing. In America you have no right to healthcare except stabilization in an ER.

Is stabilization in an ER really a “right”? It used to not be, when did that become the case? Just curious.

I think the pp may be referring to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires hospital ERs to provide care that stabilizes a person’s condition without regard for the individual’s insurance status or ability to pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are often arbitration clauses in agreements. People just
Don’t tend to notice them or even read them. They are enforceable. Here’s the thing. In America you have no right to healthcare except stabilization in an ER.

Is stabilization in an ER really a “right”? It used to not be, when did that become the case? Just curious.

EMTALA, 1986. It's been around for about 40 years.

In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented.

https://www.cms.gov/medicare/regulations-guidance/legislation/emergency-medical-treatment-labor-act