• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why do hospitals have to provide ER care regardless of ability to pay...

her209

her209

No Lifer
...when restaurants don't have to provide food regardless of ability to pay? To use the "everyone has to eat sometime" analogy.

If restaurants were required to serve patrons regardless of their ability to pay and they didn't, that means the paying patrons would have to pick up the tab for those that "dine and dash".

I will concede that you won't be walking down the street and get struck by a hunger pain that requires you to be taken to the nearest restaurant for food service.
 
blame Ronald Reagan 😀
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.[1]

EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals." The statute defines "participating hospitals" as those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program.[2] However, in practical terms, EMTALA applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S., with the exception of the Shriners Hospitals for Children, Indian Health Service hospitals, and Veterans Affairs hospitals.[citation needed] The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004,[3] or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients.[4][5]
Click to expand...
 
her209 said:
...when restaurants don't have to provide food regardless of ability to pay? To use the "everyone has to eat sometime" analogy.

If restaurants were required to serve patrons regardless of their ability to pay and they didn't, that means the paying patrons would have to pick up the tab for those that "dine and dash".

I will concede that you won't be walking down the street and get struck by a hunger pain that requires you to be taken to the nearest restaurant for food service.
Click to expand...
Because "hungry" is virtually never an emergency situation. Bleeding out from a stab wound is.
 
i contend that the private sector, mostly charities, many funded by both private and public monies, actually do provide a 'food safety net' in the USA. so despite there not being a govt mandate for McDonalds to serve all customers regardless of ability to pay, the truly needy are provided for in our society and do not die of starvation in the streets

i cannot find true statistics of how many people in the USA die of starvation each year, there are plenty of sites talking about hungry children and malnourished and 'below the poverty line', but how many actually die of starvation? i dunno

my experience is that i do not see any people lying upon the ground and with further investigation find out they haven't eaten in 3 weeks, not in my small town, not in the suburbs i drive through, nor in the urban core of Kansas City where i work

i do see panhandlers on certain corners in the city, no way to know what their true circumstance is

i personally know 'working class/lower middle class' people that go to churches for food/household goods hand outs. these people have mini-vans to drive to the church and get the free groceries. do they 'need' it? they must feel they do if they are going to get free stuff from a public give away
 
Vic Vega said:
Wow, was he a King or something? I didn't realise the President could propose legislation to the Congress and pass it without a vote. Oh, that's right, the President can't propose legislation and can't vote on legislation either.
Click to expand...

Way to ignore that President Reagan could veto any bill he didn't like. Because the Democrats in the Senate didn't have any way to override a presidential veto during any of the years of President Reagan's Terms

Additionally members of the Republican and Democratic parties were actually on speaking terms with one another and actually knew what compromise meant.

That changed in the 90's
 
Because there's no real alternative to getting emergency medical treatment. There are some very practical places to get food if you're desperate, like charities.
 
Vic Vega said:
Wow, was he a King or something? I didn't realise the President could propose legislation to the Congress and pass it without a vote. Oh, that's right, the President can't propose legislation and can't vote on legislation either. :whiste:
Click to expand...
Same applies to ObamaCare, so we can call mandatory ER treatment ReaganCare.
 
I am 100% in support of the requirement that ER's treat people no matter what their status for several reasons. For starters, from a humanitarian perspective, it doesn't make sense to me that we as a society would let people die because they can't come up with money on the spot.

Beyond the humanitarian perspective, when time is critical (like when someone goes to the ER), it's important that the hospital not have to waste time checking someone's legal status, insurance status etc as precursors to treating them. Imagine if you are a legal resident, but don't get critical treatment after a car accident because there was some screwup in records or something like that. Not acceptable.
 
soundforbjt said:
Scalia wants to get rid of ReaganCare? Activist judge.
Click to expand...

Suggesting we get rid of something is not the same as using the judicial power to do so (which would be activism). If he thinks we should get rid of that requirement through the democratic process, that's perfectly OK, he's entitled to his opinion though I disagree with it.
 
Double Trouble said:
Suggesting we get rid of something is not the same as using the judicial power to do so (which would be activism). If he thinks we should get rid of that requirement through the democratic process, that's perfectly OK, he's entitled to his opinion though I disagree with it.
Click to expand...

He is entitled to his opinion, and we are entitled to our opinion of him.
 
Double Trouble said:
I am 100% in support of the requirement that ER's treat people no matter what their status for several reasons. For starters, from a humanitarian perspective, it doesn't make sense to me that we as a society would let people die because they can't come up with money on the spot.

Beyond the humanitarian perspective, when time is critical (like when someone goes to the ER), it's important that the hospital not have to waste time checking someone's legal status, insurance status etc as precursors to treating them. Imagine if you are a legal resident, but don't get critical treatment after a car accident because there was some screwup in records or something like that. Not acceptable.
Click to expand...

Acceptable to Scalia.
 
Ummmmm....have ANY of you people ever worked in an E.R.? Anyone who has can tell you that a significant % of the people in there are GOMER's...

Go to a large ER in CA, TX, NM, CO...forget about it!
 
kinev said:
Anyone who has can tell you that a significant % of the people in there are GOMER's...
Click to expand...
had to look that up
"Gomer" (also spelled GOOMER) stands for Get Out Of My Emergency Room, reflecting the annoyance of the doctors. It first appeared in widespread print in the medical novel The House of God by Samuel Shem, and was used mostly in the 1980s and 1990s. It is still used today, although many medical professionals find it disrespectful and unprofessional.[citation needed] The term has been used several times on the television shows Scrubs and ER.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top