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

[her209]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness

How can you have "life" if you're dead because you couldn't afford emergency medical treatment?

lawnchair and popcorn

How did people pursue "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" pre-1986?

:awe:

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

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!

Naw. Don't know about America, but here we get a lot of old people, but they're usually pretty good. It's usually the younger people we get that are drunk or OD, or done something in a stupid bid for attention, that are non-cooperative.

How did people pursue "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" pre-1986?

:awe:

They didn't. The world was in black and white back then anyway, nothing to be happy about

:whiste:

 

[her209]

Because "hungry" is virtually never an emergency situation. Bleeding out from a stab wound is.

Therefore one should have insurance or be prepared to pay the bill in full should such an occasion arises.

 

[Ronstang]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness

How can you have "life" if you're dead because you couldn't afford emergency medical treatment?


lawnchair and popcorn

It is hard for liberals to grasp but that phrase does not mean what they would like it to mean. With their broad brush they think that single statement gives the government ultimate control to do what ever they want. As usual the people who vote for Democrats are wrong. First of all this is a statement in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution....big difference. Secondly even if it was some kind of binding requirement for the government it does not mean "artificial life" which is exactly what medical care is considering it takes the outlay of knowledge, labor, and resources of another individual. So according to liberals people in the medical industry, and those of us taxed to pay some of the medical bills of those who won't, or can't, are denied the very same rights granted to the person receiving the free care.

 

[Tom]

If nobody pointed this out yet..

No hospital has to accept anyone.

If they build their hospitals in a city, they have to follow the laws of that city. Don't like it ? Build it elsewhere.

If a hospital wants to build their hospital in a state, they have to obey the laws of that state. Don't like it ? Build it elsewhere.

Want to build a hospital in a country ? You follow the laws of that country. Don't like it ? Built it elsewhere ?

Want to get paid the federal money that goes to hospitals through Medicare, Medicaid, training for doctors, other programs ? Then follow the rules.
btw, the current program of treating people in ERs is a totally inadequate band-aid. Lots of people die in this country needlessly, because they don't get medical care until its too late, or they have chronic conditions that require ongoing treatment.

Its a real shame.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Why? Because we're not fucking barbarians, that's why. Well, I am, but I'm still more civilized than half the folks here.

How about theft? Is that cool? Ronnie R ordered that hospitals take people but the government doesn't reimburse costs. Corporations have power? Only because they bribe politicians.

 

[Rainsford]

Therefore one should have insurance or be prepared to pay the bill in full should such an occasion arises.

And what about those people that don't have insurance and aren't independently wealthy?

 

[Rainsford]

How about theft? Is that cool? Ronnie R ordered that hospitals take people but the government doesn't reimburse costs. Corporations have power? Only because they bribe politicians.

We live in a society that has a LOT of attributes, many helped by the government, that make it possible to have a health care industry and for the participants in that industry to become quite wealthy. It doesn't seem unreasonable if there are also certain obligations that go along with that.

 

[FaaR]

How about theft? Is that cool? Ronnie R ordered that hospitals take people but the government doesn't reimburse costs.

You worry too much about money. Civilized western countries (such as you find in Europe, for example) offer free medical care to ANYONE. No insurance needed. And society prospers, as a result, and there aren't any douchebags whining about theft, or not getting reimbursed and whatnot for not leaving people to die when they're injured or sick.

But all those poor aborted babies... That's murder!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We live in a society that has a LOT of attributes, many helped by the government, that make it possible to have a health care industry and for the participants in that industry to become quite wealthy. It doesn't seem unreasonable if there are also certain obligations that go along with that.

So if someone makes money and it's a benefit to society then it's fine to force them to work and not only be unpaid but forced to pay for it themselves as well. Now considering what the ER bills their charges become completely reasonable. Compulsory labor that the worker has to pay for. Thats quite an obligation.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You worry too much about money. Civilized western countries (such as you find in Europe, for example) offer free medical care to ANYONE. No insurance needed. And society prospers, as a result, and there aren't any douchebags whining about theft, or not getting reimbursed and whatnot for not leaving people to die when they're injured or sick.

But all those poor aborted babies... That's murder!

Thats great. We're told how much our system costs so that's no longer a concern. Whats really awesome is how this is so cool to you. Lets have you "donate"your time and money against your will. I'm sure you've written Congress and begged for it.

 

[Rainsford]

So if someone makes money and it's a benefit to society then it's fine to force them to work and not only be unpaid but forced to pay for it themselves as well. Now considering what the ER bills their charges become completely reasonable. Compulsory labor that the worker has to pay for. Thats quite an obligation.

Stop being so dramatic. The people providing the labor in ER are getting paid for their labor, and I doubt many of them object to the idea of valuing saving people over getting money out of them.

And you missed my point. If someone makes money and it's a benefit to society, they are also benefiting from living in a society that enables them to make that money in the first place. Witness the number of top notch hospitals and rich health care businessmen in Somalia for a good example of what I'm talking about. If living in this society means you have obligations to go along with the opportunities, I don't think that's an unreasonable trade.

 

[Rainsford]

Thats great. We're told how much our system costs so that's no longer a concern. Whats really awesome is how this is so cool to you. Lets have you "donate"your time and money against your will. I'm sure you've written Congress and begged for it.

That sounds like the same argument against taxes..."I'm forced to work for the government against my will. That's like slavery!"

What's the alternative in any case? "Oh sorry, you don't have insurance or thousands of dollars on hand? Better luck next life, now go bleed all over the floor somewhere else."

 

[JEDIYoda]

Stop being so dramatic. The people providing the labor in ER are getting paid for their labor, and I doubt many of them object to the idea of valuing saving people over getting money out of them.

And you missed my point. If someone makes money and it's a benefit to society, they are also benefiting from living in a society that enables them to make that money in the first place. Witness the number of top notch hospitals and rich health care businessmen in Somalia for a good example of what I'm talking about. If living in this society means you have obligations to go along with the opportunities, I don't think that's an unreasonable trade.

Let me tell you that I had a true emergency that could only be taken care of in the emergency room. I could not get a doctor to see me...I had no insurance....my wife is fully 100% covered yet I had no insurance -- thats another story.....my wife...

I was wheeled into the emergency past the financial aid window.......8 hrs later I was stabilized the Doctor, SHE came to check up on me and brought some papers and told me -- I know that you have no insurance. In a week go to such and such a county building with these papers. I did and they paid 100% of the bill except for $10.00.

The Doctors and workers in the ER were more concerned with getting me stabilized and comfortable. Not one person talked about paying the bill.....until later in the day....

What a country we live in!!!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Stop being so dramatic. The people providing the labor in ER are getting paid for their labor, and I doubt many of them object to the idea of valuing saving people over getting money out of them.

And you missed my point. If someone makes money and it's a benefit to society, they are also benefiting from living in a society that enables them to make that money in the first place. Witness the number of top notch hospitals and rich health care businessmen in Somalia for a good example of what I'm talking about. If living in this society means you have obligations to go along with the opportunities, I don't think that's an unreasonable trade.

They get paid in spite of the fact they are ordered, not because of. As difficult as the concept is, commanding something without paying is still theft. The problem is not requiring that assistance be rendered but the proportional responsibility of proper compensation is completely alien to so many. Yes it's long established but it's a cowardly means of foisting an agenda on others with no political costs. Hell, we should have never rebelled. We just install elected monarchs

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That sounds like the same argument against taxes..."I'm forced to work for the government against my will. That's like slavery!"

What's the alternative in any case? "Oh sorry, you don't have insurance or thousands of dollars on hand? Better luck next life, now go bleed all over the floor somewhere else."

How about payment for services rendered?

 

[Rainsford]

They get paid in spite of the fact they are ordered, not because of. As difficult as the concept is, commanding something without paying is still theft. The problem is not requiring that assistance be rendered but the proportional responsibility of proper compensation is completely alien to so many. Yes it's long established but it's a cowardly means of foisting an agenda on others with no political costs. Hell, we should have never rebelled. We just install elected monarchs

Yeah, that's sort of the opposite direction I was hoping you'd go with the whole overly dramatic thing...

As tough as it may be to believe, we live in a society with rules and obligations. Like everything else, it's all a matter of degree when we decide those rules become too onerous and must be changed. Sometimes they're not that bad and we can live with them, especially when they provide overall benefits. Sometimes they're too demanding and we try to get them changed.

Your argument, on the other hand, seems to be that in this particular case (for some reason) the rules are automatically too much of an obligation simply for being any obligation whatsoever. Your argument is so generic that it's hard to understand how you aren't constantly protesting every little thing.

If there's some reason THIS particular obligation is especially unreasonable, I'd understand where you're coming from. But your argument just seems like you don't like government regulation of anything, ever, for any reason.

 

[Rainsford]

How about payment for services rendered?

That would be ideal, and it's what most people do. What about those that can't pay, though?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That would be ideal, and it's what most people do. What about those that can't pay, though?

What? I'm talking about the government paying for what it requires. Hospitals could be paid according to medicaid/medicare rules. The wiki says that there is no compensation provided for.

 

[WHAMPOM]

...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.

Socialist legislation enacted by the commie Ronald. You know "The Government is the enemy man!"

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Something further, if they are paid for services rendered I have no objection at all.

 

[WHAMPOM]

...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.

They do provide free food, it's called the garbage bin, other then what they donate for a tax break.

 

[Darwin333]

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

We are one of the few nations in the world in which our poor people are very often fat.

 

[Darwin333]

What? I'm talking about the government paying for what it requires. Hospitals could be paid according to medicaid/medicare rules. The wiki says that there is no compensation provided for.

Because the numbers look better when they force the hospitals to do the cost shifting.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Because the numbers look better when they force the hospitals to do the cost shifting.

I suppose. I understand the concept that there are times when necessity requires those who cannot afford care seek it at an ER. If the contention is that ought to be then I need to pay the taxes the same as others to provide those services. It's straightforward with no tricky justifications. Apparently that's not how some see things but instead pass the responsibility onto others because apparently it's not our collective responsibility but a free lunch for us by forced labor. Hardly a high minded ideal, in fact it's rather imperious.