Indigent patients are killing community hospitals.

[tnitsuj]

from Washingtonpost.com




$20.53/hr for an Orthopeic Surgeon $52/hr for a trauma surgeon...jeebus. Why would they continue to work there?

 

[Witling]

An astonishing title for this thread. You mean the poor bastards should just go and die quietly without trying to get medical care. Talk about "blame the victim." Personally, I'd be more inclinded to blame the funding structures and spending priorities, i.e., $87 Billion for Haliburton this year.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Whitling
An astonishing title for this thread. You mean the poor bastards should just go and die quietly without trying to get medical care. Talk about "blame the victim." Personally, I'd be more inclinded to blame the funding structures and spending priorities, i.e., $87 Billion for Haliburton this year.

Where does our Constitution guarantee healthcare? Haliburton has absolutely nothing to do with this.

 

[Witling]

Mill. The Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to breath either, but I believe there is a human right to do so. It's true, Haliburton doesn't have anything to do with this. But spending money on a stupid move sure does have something to do with this.

 

[stormbv]

So much for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, eh?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: stormbv
So much for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, eh?

That's from the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution. No one said it was guaranteed.

 

[Witling]

Yeah, we're leading the way to a new age -- the only industrialized country in the western world where health care depends on having a job.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Yeah, we're leading the way to a new age -- the only industrialized country in the western world where health care depends on having a job.

So? Popular doesn't mean it is right.

 

[Witling]

"So? Popular doesn't mean it is right."

I assume you're referring to the invasion of Iraq.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Where does our Constitution guarantee healthcare? Haliburton has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Where does our Constitution guarantee corporate profits? Halliburton (and Bechtel and Boeing and . . .) have absolutely everything to do with this! Our country has horribly warped priorities.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Whitling
"So? Popular doesn't mean it is right."

I assume you're referring to the invasion of Iraq.

Whitling you are hanging out with "the sheep" too much lately. Picking up the "one-liner" debate methodology now too I see. I have higher standards for you.


back to:

the only industrialized country in the western world where health care depends on having a job.

Not true. Nobody is ever turned away for health care in a public hospital ER. Give it a try sometime.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Where does our Constitution guarantee healthcare? Haliburton has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Where does our Constitution guarantee corporate profits? Halliburton (and Bechtel and Boeing and . . .) have absolutely everything to do with this! Our country has horribly warped priorities.

That strawman would scare any flock of birds away.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Whitling
"So? Popular doesn't mean it is right."

I assume you're referring to the invasion of Iraq.

Troll much? What is this thread about? Indigent patients and healthcare. That's what I'm talking about. You must be high as a kite to assume I'm talking about Iraq.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Not true. Nobody is ever turned away for health care in a public hospital ER. Give it a try sometime.

Actually we turn away healthcare all the time at hospitals. Private ERs (as you've clearly discriminated) can turn away non-emergent care . . . typically taken to mean an imminent threat of morbidity/mortality. Unfortunately, managed care and cut backs in government funding have caused many public AND private hospitals to close their ERs (if not the entire hospital). Accordingly with fewer facilities available the distinction between public and private is a non sequitur if only private hospital care is available. Far more troubling is the fact that ERs are not appropriate for delivering ANY care other than emergency care. The ER is not staffed by internal medicine, pediatrics, and ob/gyn (not counting the clueless resident on rotation).

 

[Jhhnn]

"Not true. Nobody is ever turned away for health care in a public hospital ER. Give it a try sometime."

While factual, that statement is misleading. As more and more public hospitals go broke, trauma patients must go farther and farther to get to one- none of which is very comforting if you've died enroute...

 

[Witling]

The point is, Mill, that you want to rip off a simplistic one-liner like, "So? Popular doesn't mean it is right." That's not exactly what I'd call a policy argument. Perhaps my irony was too subtle. I think it's irrefutable that the Constitution does not guarantee health care. I also think that it's irrefutable that a modern, wealthy society should provide health care to all its members -- even those members who don't meet the standards of some for being human beings worthy of health care. I have little patience for those who think that human beings have to "do something" or be something other than human to stay in the lifeboat.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"Not true. Nobody is ever turned away for health care in a public hospital ER. Give it a try sometime."

While factual, that statement is misleading. As more and more public hospitals go broke, trauma patients must go farther and farther to get to one- none of which is very comforting if you've died enroute...

Very good. For those of you who RTFA, this is what it is talking about.

Whitling said health care depended on having a job. That isn't true. Every human being in this country has minimal health coverage (see BBD's post) to prevent death or serious illness.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Actually I disagree. There's a tremendous difference between healthcare . . . and what is provided in the typical ER. I don't know the source but one commentator noted that Americans love miraculous interventions but show minimal enthusiasm for prevention. A nondisplaced fracture of the fibula requires medical attention but not emergent. A compound fracture of the femur is a medical emergency requiring a trauma/orthopedic surgeon . . . acutally it will be a team of residents whacking away at a rod for internal fixation with an orthopod standing in the background . . . but nobody needs to know the details.

I know a lot of orthopedic surgeons that think of their profession like an auto mechanic. Replacing trannies (hips/knees) is a lot more interesting . . . and lucrative . . . than changing the transmission fluid appropriately or going easy on the gears. Sometimes you need a cardiothoracic surgeon . . . but if everybody had FREE access to health clubs, subsidized produce, FREE smoking/alcohol cessation programs, FREE illicit drug cessation programs, and subsidized acces to the MOST effective medications . . . we would need a lot less heart procedures, cardiac care units, etc. It's all a matter of your priorities . . . spend our limited resources on expensive (per unit) interventions that will be unequally distributed or provide comparatively inexpensive preventative care . . . that preserves health instead of focusing on managing impending disasters.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Whitling
The point is, Mill, that you want to rip off a simplistic one-liner like, "So? Popular doesn't mean it is right." That's not exactly what I'd call a policy argument. Perhaps my irony was too subtle. I think it's irrefutable that the Constitution does not guarantee health care. I also think that it's irrefutable that a modern, wealthy society should provide health care to all its members -- even those members who don't meet the standards of some for being human beings worthy of health care. I have little patience for those who think that human beings have to "do something" or be something other than human to stay in the lifeboat.

We don't have a "Wealthy Society" anymore, remember the Rich say they are hurting.

 

[Witling]

To paraphrase Theodore Roosevelt, "Billions for fooling around, but not one penny for health care." Let's not get distracted here. The thread is about blaming the poor for hospitals going out of business because they're not getting reimbursed.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Whitling
The point is, Mill, that you want to rip off a simplistic one-liner like, "So? Popular doesn't mean it is right." That's not exactly what I'd call a policy argument. Perhaps my irony was too subtle. I think it's irrefutable that the Constitution does not guarantee health care. I also think that it's irrefutable that a modern, wealthy society should provide health care to all its members -- even those members who don't meet the standards of some for being human beings worthy of health care. I have little patience for those who think that human beings have to "do something" or be something other than human to stay in the lifeboat.

People should have to do something to stay in the lifeboat! If they are disabled or unable then sure they shouldn't have to. What I object to is the lazy fvckheads that mooch off of everyone else. The disabled and the unable already get pretty adequate treatment. I'm sure it isn't as stellar as the Mayo Clinic, but it beats NOTHING. Those who are unwilling to work should not eat or get healthcare. Just like Jamestown to me. Otherwise we keep breeding a weak and terrible society that will be co-dependent on the rich. Get one thing straight: I'm not talking about anyone who is disabled, mentally-ill, or who has other responsibilities that take precedence to working. I'm talking about people who are not positive contributors to society. Of course any Children would be exempted as well. The person we shouldn't exempt is the 42 year old welfare beer drinking asshole that beats his wife and smokes 5 packs a day. We should just allow him to DIE.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The person we shouldn't exempt is the 42 year old welfare beer drinking asshole that beats his wife and smokes 5 packs a day. We should just allow him to DIE.

You do realize that our current system DEMANDS he receive care for his heart attack, diabetic ketoacidosis, or stroke . . . but if said he wanted:

1) alcohol detox: there's no guarantee of placement b/c there aren't that many facilities and inpatient psychiatric wards dislike consuming their minimal resources trying to help alcoholics.
2) smoking cessation: minimal reimbursement from private health insurance or Medicaid
3) dietary counseling: no reimbursement from private health insurance or Medicaid
4) violence prevention counseling: no reimbursement from private health insurance or Medicaid

You see . . . despite the self-inflicted problems of your protagonist . . . the system is not designed to provide any assistance to promoting healthy behaviors.

 

[stormbv]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: stormbv
So much for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, eh?

That's from the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution. No one said it was guaranteed.

I would think Americans would embrace lofty ideals of Freedom rather than accepting what little is doled out to them by the government. These are rights that exist despite the laws of man, but very few actually take advantage of them.

Isn't it time for another Renaissance period yet? Doubt it.

 

[heartsurgeon]

the system is not designed to provide any assistance to promoting healthy behaviors.

[/i]how do you come with this nonsense.[/i]

we are BOMBARDED with messages about how cholesterol and saturated fats are bad for you, about how smoking kills you, about the benefits of exercise, eating a varied diet, lowering our stress. For heaven's sake, i just hear a news story on "metabolic syndrome" driving home in the car! Hospitals and clinics and job sites offer free lipid screening and blood pressure screening. Those "evil" drug companies provide free or nearly free medications to zillions of patients. The Onion does comedy pieces about trial lawyers suing "Big Chocolate" for causing obesity, actual trial attornies sue McDonalds because someone got obese eating Big Mac's all the time. Everybody knows what "healthy behaviors" are. They just choose not act that way, and your not going to change that unless you make the behavior illegal, or very expensive (taxes).

The single most effective way to cut down on smoking...raise the cost of a pack of cigarettes. Cut down on drinking, make it more expensive. Cut down on drug usage..handle drug sellers like they do in Singapore (don't ask).

wake up liberals!!! people choose to smoke, choose to overeat, choose to be sedentary....and your fantasies about "only if we spent more money (preferably yours, not mine) on preventative care we would all be buff and healthy, is sophomoric and naive. anyone who believes this just isn't basing their opinions on reality, facts, or experience about how the world, and people really act.

the "system" is set up to manage and provide services that people want and need. the problem is, they want to have unhealthy lifestyles, and they don't want to pay for the consequences. now design a health care system that serves that paradigm.

p.s. don't forget that trial lawyers are a huge "tax" on everyone who utilizes health care.

 

[Dari]

I t sucks to be poor. Get rich.

j/k.