3 ms·

And it is still not a thing because the State prohibited said action.

• desdiv 8y ago
  Yes, just like how the federal government prohibited marijuana and therefore no one in the United States of America consumes marijuana. Someone up thread made a claim and the burden of proof was on them. Now multiple reliable sources have been provided to satisfy that proof. You claim an unspecified law prohibit this and that this prohibition actually works. So now the burden of proof falls on you to actually cite the law and provide reliable sources of this law actually working.
• ceejayoz 8y ago
  By that logic, murder's not a thing. Texas got mad here because there were no in-network anesthesia services. Having some out-of-network providers is depressingly common, and hard to guard against: https://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20180917/NEWS/180919898 https://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20180917/NEWS/18091... > About 25% of patient visits to hospitals in their insurance network result in balance billing from care by out-of-network physicians. Also, from the Vox article: > The problem with that law, Pogue argues, is that it requires patients to contact the state — and patients often aren’t aware of the option. Kohan, for example, didn’t know he had these rights until I told him. Pogue’s research suggests this is really common: Only 3,824 Texas patients have used the law to resolve their surprise bills since 2009. CPPP estimates that this is a tiny fraction of the 250,000 surprise medical bills sent out in the same time frame. This is just Texas, too. Plenty of states don't have their 2009 state law to work with.