Health Care in the US

[Wagner]

There is always this rumor in the press and such (even on this board) that somehow policy allows for HC to 'not' be provided to those that don't have health care......untrue. Can't think of a better system where, even if you did not do your responsibility of covering yourself, you get the same top tier health care..for free.

Sounds pretty awesome to me.

(sorry for the crappy pic, but I took this at the hospital yesterday )


It's the law!
If you have a medical emergency or are in labor, you have the right to receive, within the capabilities of this hospitals staff and facilities:

- an appropriate medical screening examination
- necessary stabilizing treatment and if necessary, an appropriate transfer to another facility even if you cannot pay or do not have medical insurance or you are not entitled to medicare or medicaid

[X5Flyboy]

I have no health insurance (retired, under 65), but I can afford doctor visits, prescriptions, eyeglasses, and dental. What worries me most is major medical costs. Even a short stay in the hospital was much more inexpensive than insurance premiums. I was amazed how much the stay was discounted by paying cash, a $2600 bill was reduced to less that $1200. And I will never understand how adding a layer of people between me and the doctor actually "saves" money.

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by X5Flyboy

I have no health insurance (retired, under 65), but I can afford doctor visits, prescriptions, eyeglasses, and dental. What worries me most is major medical costs. Even a short stay in the hospital was much more inexpensive than insurance premiums. I was amazed how much the stay was discounted by paying cash, a $2600 bill was reduced to less that $1200. And I will never understand how adding a layer of people between me and the doctor actually "saves" money.

Well from my own family experiences with cancer, when you're shelling out $70K a month..you'd like insurance. But for the general items, if you're relatively well off, you can probably pay "less" than having insurance coverage. To me, it is not worth the risk even remotely. But isn't it nice to live in a country where that choice is YOURS and not the governments?

[SuaveX5]

Originally Posted by Wagner

Well from my own family experiences with cancer, when you're shelling out $70K a month..you'd like insurance. But for the general items, if you're relatively well off, you can probably pay "less" than having insurance coverage. To me, it is not worth the risk even remotely.

[SuaveX5]

Yes you will get treatment if you don`t have health insurance, but in some hospitals you will not get the same quality and fast treatment as if you did have health insurance, and this info is coming from a friend that worked for an insurance company before and now is working at a hospital and she tells me it happens a lot.

[blondboinsd]

Originally Posted by SuaveX5

Yes you will get treatment if you don`t have health insurance, but in some hospitals you will not get the same quality and fast treatment as if you did have health insurance, and this info is coming from a friend that worked for an insurance company before and now is working at a hospital and she tells me it happens a lot.

I see no issue with this either. If you don't feel the need the protect yourself yet you have no issue with running up the tab at a hospital (usually those without health insurance never pay) I see no issue with you getting the lowest tier service. I also don't understand why we don't demand payment up front like every other major industrialized country. In Mexico if you can't pay NOW before the service and are not a citizen. We don't treat you. We should do that here.

50% of the uninsured in the US are illegal immigrants, now explain to me why I should treat them vs. band-aiding their wound and sending them back across the border to their free health insurance? They are here illegally, they don't deserve any form of "special treatment" sorry!

[statdoc]

Originally Posted by SuaveX5

Yes you will get treatment if you don`t have health insurance, but in some hospitals you will not get the same quality and fast treatment as if you did have health insurance, and this info is coming from a friend that worked for an insurance company before and now is working at a hospital and she tells me it happens a lot.

I am one of the doctors who is obligated under the Federal law Wagner showed (EMTALA) to treat patients without regard for ability to pay. Your friend (obviously a non-medically-trained person) probably doesn't understand the difference we see between "emergency" and "non-emerg" conditions. If the person has a non-emerg condition, we are NOT obligated to provide care simply because the patient chose to use the ED as a "convenience clinic". Say, the patient has a runny nose and fever. They surely know they have nothing more serious than a cold, but they really want a work excuse for the day. We are not required to treat that patient beyond the initial exam. Many hospitals have policies in place that would, at that point, tell the patient that if you are willing to pay cash for the visit, the doctor will see you further. No promises on the treatment given (ie, we are not selling work excuses or pain med for certain amounts or anything like that).

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by statdoc

I am one of the doctors who is obligated under the Federal law Wagner showed (EMTALA) to treat patients without regard for ability to pay. Your friend (obviously a non-medically-trained person) probably doesn't understand the difference we see between "emergency" and "non-emerg" conditions. If the person has a non-emerg condition, we are NOT obligated to provide care simply because the patient chose to use the ED as a "convenience clinic". Say, the patient has a runny nose and fever. They surely know they have nothing more serious than a cold, but they really want a work excuse for the day. We are not required to treat that patient beyond the initial exam. Many hospitals have policies in place that would, at that point, tell the patient that if you are willing to pay cash for the visit, the doctor will see you further. No promises on the treatment given (ie, we are not selling work excuses or pain med for certain amounts or anything like that).

Shut it, no one posting about this wants the opinion of someone who knows. It just screws up the BS'ing capability of socialist fanatics who wish to make the US generally look like sh--.

[Wagner]

I would never want to tailor any policy in the US based on 'what Mexico does'

However, this SETTLES the debate of "people being left at the door because they don't have HC in the USA". If they are left, it is 100% ILLEGAL!

[JCL]

Originally Posted by Wagner

However, this SETTLES the debate of "people being left at the door because they don't have HC in the USA". If they are left, it is 100% ILLEGAL!

Seems you are making this a little black and white. Agree with your example, and it is a good one, that people shouldn't be left at the door if they can't pay. The sign is very clear. However, the sign says they get a screening exam, stabilization, and transfer out somewhere else. In practice, it seems to me that there may be quite a gap between that process, and curing an illness.

Another way of putting it would be to say that sick people are not left at the door, they are helped back out through it, and not necessarily welcomed in.

But you knew I was going to make a comment, didn't you?