"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
m...
They would have had access to emergency medical treatment except
they attempted to hijack ambulances and loot hospitals.

Are those two "they"s meant to be the same? That is, are you claiming that
all--or even a nontrivial fraction--of the people who lacked access to
emergency medical treatment are the same people who had attempted to hijack
ambulences or loot hospitals? Presumably not; there's no evidence to support
such a claim.

What then *do* you mean? That "they" who couldn't get emergency care had the
same skin color as "they" who hijacked ambulences, so that you feel entitled
to just refer to all of "them" interchangeably? Because I really don't see
any other way to parse what you wrote.

--Gary