Health Care in the US

[blondboinsd]

Originally Posted by LeMansX5

We know we can't beat Canadian health care system.

Yuck! You couldn't pay me to give up my system for the Canadian system. No way no how.

[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).

[JCL]

Originally Posted by blondboinsd

Yuck! You couldn't pay me to give up my system for the Canadian system. No way no how.

That's OK, we aren't offering to pay people to adopt the Canadian system.

On a similar track, you couldn't pay us to assume the financial situation of your state government.

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Cancer and most other diseases are not considered a "medical emergency". If you show up at the hospital and need cancer treatement and have no insurance, you will be sent on your way. And if you need any kind of transplant, that also is not covered under the law. They are only required to stabalize you, not "fix" or "cure" you.

One of my business associates just got a lung transplant a few months ago. He had lung disease and he would have died without the transplant. If he did not have insurance, he would have died. The government would not have paid for the transplant.

And even if you have insurance, there are no guarantees. Many people are denied coverage for things like transplants if the insurance company determines that it was a "pre-existing condition", even if the person did not know about it prior to getting the insurance.

Health Care is a business in this country. The #1 goal is to make money. Treating people is a far second on the priority list.

You should be sent packing, be responsible for YOURSELF...it isn't societies job to make sure you're ok "IT'S THE LAW" good enough for me

[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]

Originally Posted by JCL

That's OK, we aren't offering to pay people to adopt the Canadian system.

On a similar track, you couldn't pay us to assume the financial situation of your state government.

Check back in a few years How are the politics working out in Canada again?

As for the HC side: http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/hl856.cfm

[JCL]

Originally Posted by Wagner

Check back in a few years How are the politics working out in Canada again?

As for the HC side: http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/hl856.cfm

The politics are working out primarily because Parliament has been prorogued. We'll see how long the minority government lasts. One of the costs of multiple parties.

I've seen the Top Ten list for the Canadian health care system (your link) before. I don't disagree with many of the points in it. It does illustrate how much misinformation is out there.

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by Wagner

You should be sent packing, be responsible for YOURSELF

Funny how last week you were telling me that its my music company's job to provide health care. Now you say each individual should be responsible for themselves.

[Eric5273]

This sums up the US health care system and the HMO's that most people have for their health coverage....

Here's a transcript of how HMO's came to be:

February 17, 1971, 5:23pm in the Oval Office:

Ehrlichman: We have now narrowed down the vice president's problems on this thing to one issue, and that is whether we should include these Health Maintanance Organizations like Edgar Kaiser's thing.

Nixon: Now let me ask you... You know I'm not too keen on any of these damn medical programs.

Ehrlichman: This is a private enterprise one.

Nixon: Well, that appeals to me.

Ehrlichman: Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason he can do it.... I had Edgar Kaiser come in, talk to me about this. And I went into some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because the less care they give them, the more money they make.

Nixon: Fine.



Take a listen for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QkgUkM0o6Q




People who qualify for Medicaid actually receive better care than those who have private insurance, because Medicaid has fewer restrictions than most HMOs. And the reason is that it's non-profit.

[blondboinsd]

Originally Posted by Eric5273

This sums up the US health care system and the HMO's that most people have for their health coverage....

Here's a transcript of how HMO's came to be:

February 17, 1971, 5:23pm in the Oval Office:

Ehrlichman: We have now narrowed down the vice president's problems on this thing to one issue, and that is whether we should include these Health Maintanance Organizations like Edgar Kaiser's thing.

Nixon: Now let me ask you... You know I'm not too keen on any of these damn medical programs.

Ehrlichman: This is a private enterprise one.

Nixon: Well, that appeals to me.

Ehrlichman: Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason he can do it.... I had Edgar Kaiser come in, talk to me about this. And I went into some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because the less care they give them, the more money they make.

Nixon: Fine.



Take a listen for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QkgUkM0o6Q




People who qualify for Medicaid actually receive better care than those who have private insurance, because Medicaid has fewer restrictions than most HMOs. And the reason is that it's non-profit.

You are to pathetic sometimes, I mean nearly all times, ok everytime, I admit it. I would like to see you dig up a study to prove your little personal statement at the bottom because as far as I'm concerned it couldn't be anything but lies, then again most of the vile that spews from your sn is a lie.