Thread: Health Care Reform; States suing as unconstitutional

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

1) The ER is not for routine check-ups. That people without health insurance use them as such is not a good thing, but another example of a broken system that needs reform NOW.

2) That people without health care get "free" treatment on an emergency basis and then do not "have to" pay for it because they can not afford it is not a good thing, but another example of a broken system that needs reform NOW. The hospital then eats these bills, and passe them on to the other consumers of healthcare.

If I am not mistaken (which I may VERY well be), an ER has only the responsibility to ensure you do not have life threatening issues at the moment. Anythg else, they CAN refuse treatment. That they do not, I THINK is a decision they can make. The fact that a hospital has to make decisions like this is another example of a broken system that needs reform NOW.

3) Your good friend who had a $20,000 emergency surgery....he never got a bill? The hospital just decdied to pay for it out of the kindness of their hearts? I have never heard of that before. If he has any income or property, he could be sued for it. I don't recall the exact percetnage, but a staggeringly high percentage of the personal bankruptcies today are caused by people who have had their personal finances absoltuely decimated by lack of insurance/medical bills. That he got this surgery is wodnerful, I am glad he got this life-saving treatment. If he is eventuially bankrupted by it, I would sy that is probably a bad thing, and another example of a broken system that needs reform NOW.

According to my friend who works at the hospital, if you go to the ER for any reason (for instance a slight cough) they HAVE to do $2-5k worth of tests because if say, they tell you that you have a cold and give you a cough drop, but later testing found that you have lung cancer, the hospital could face lawsuits for not properly diagnosing a life threatening condition. So they test for everything as a way to cover their behind, ergo someone with no $$ can use the ER as their "primary care". Apparently there are some people who do this as often as monthly, meaning the hospital is absorbing $25-60k (don't remember her exact numbers..) for ONE patient.

My other friend who had the $20k surgery. He is an unemployed lawyer (has his J.D. but has not yet passed the Bar exam). Since he is unemployed and has no income, he didn't get billed, it was taken out of the hospitals funding for uninsured patients. According to my friend working at the hospital (we are all common friends, so she's familiar with the situation of the other) this is standard practice for public hospitals.

I wasn't arguing that the system needs some sort of overhaul, but one of the main "selling points" for the legislation was to benefit "all those poor people who can't afford insurance who are just left to rot". There is a system in place to cover this, and every public hospital should have funding in the budget to cover uninsured patients. The problem is some people abuse this system, and others just plain don't know it exists.

Without getting into a debate about war, (current or past), I will comment that I am all for helping those who need help, however, how that is defined and more importantly effectively done is another matter. I'm afraid there is good reason to believe that the current health care document/law falls more into the line of entitlement.

We often face financial difficulty because of rampant consumerism and a culture of entitlement: We bought that big house, and we just had to have that new car. Getting a loan to finance a new business venture or to pay off high-interest credit cards can be good debt choices. The truth though, is that most of our modern-day debt is not "good debt". It's an accumulation of eating out every day, and of buying that latest gadget we "must have". It's the mentality that we not only can have - but deserve - whatever we desire at the drop of hat. I was raised to understand that there were opportunities that were available to me...that I could pursue and perhaps be assisted in realizing...if so, that assistance would be returned/paid back.

It seems to me that those who would have others do for them ride on the back of the charity example and wrongly enjoin their wants to a poster child of need and say they are one in-the-same. They are entitled to a higher education, they are entitled to be able to purchase a home, (we saw how well that turned out a little over a year ago). We have all heard about the welfare state/culture...people who way of life is a system of hand-outs...many of them turly needy, probably more of them very capable but who we're raised into this system and like a city kid who think milk comes out of a carton, doesn't know any better...it's a way of life. As well, think of the advertisement on television of that Bozo in a suit with question and exclamation marks all over it selling a book that tells you how to get virtually anything you want paid for by the government.

Our entitlement mentality needs to be broken. It's a mentality that is flawed and frankly, rides on the back of those who feel privileged by the fact that our country entitles you to pursue your own course and sets the limit with your own imagination and effort.

Originally Posted by bbshriver

According to my friend who works at the hospital, if you go to the ER for any reason (for instance a slight cough) they HAVE to do $2-5k worth of tests because if say, they tell you that you have a cold and give you a cough drop, but later testing found that you have lung cancer, the hospital could face lawsuits for not properly diagnosing a life threatening condition. So they test for everything as a way to cover their behind, ergo someone with no $$ can use the ER as their "primary care". Apparently there are some people who do this as often as monthly, meaning the hospital is absorbing $25-60k (don't remember her exact numbers..) for ONE patient.

My other friend who had the $20k surgery. He is an unemployed lawyer (has his J.D. but has not yet passed the Bar exam). Since he is unemployed and has no income, he didn't get billed, it was taken out of the hospitals funding for uninsured patients. According to my friend working at the hospital (we are all common friends, so she's familiar with the situation of the other) this is standard practice for public hospitals.

I wasn't arguing that the system needs some sort of overhaul, but one of the main "selling points" for the legislation was to benefit "all those poor people who can't afford insurance who are just left to rot". There is a system in place to cover this, and every public hospital should have funding in the budget to cover uninsured patients. The problem is some people abuse this system, and others just plain don't know it exists.

The fact is they don't LEGALLY have to do those tests, but do so to protect themselves. Again, I see this as a broken system. They have an obligation to do enough to determine if an emergency exists. That they can get sued if they screw up is an issue of malpractice, appropriate levels of care, and a WHOLE other big mess of a discussion.

The fact that your friend had that available to him is wonderful. I wonder (and again, i don't know the facts) if he had had insurance, and had regular check-ups, it would never have become an emergency? Of course, this isn't always the case, but there is no arguing that preventative care saves time, treatment, money, and lives. I was not aware that all public hospitals had such a program. I wonder how well funded it is? What about private hospitals?

Is your argument is that all uninsured people can get an appropriate level of healthcare for free already?

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

...I was not aware that all public hospitals had such a program. I wonder how well funded it is? What about private hospitals?

I'm sure the funding depends on the hospital, but I know at the local hospital she said (unless my memory is terribly failing me) that it was funded in the millions. However at one of the hospitals she works at (part of the local "health network") they had one "customer" who for several years in a row has accounted for 75+% of their "unplanned" budget.

I don't believe private hospitals are required to do this, but my friend works in a public one, so she wasn't sure on that answer either.

Is your argument is that all uninsured people can get an appropriate level of healthcare for free already?

I don't know the requirements to use this system, I believe income level is somehow taken into consideration as well. But there IS some system to provide emergency care for uninsured people. A public hospital CANNOT deny you care because you cannot pay.

Originally Posted by bbshriver

A public hospital CANNOT deny you care because you cannot pay.

they can, it's just illegal for one to turn people away who show up for emergency care. The government can't guarantee there will be enough workers for all the people pretending to have emergencies or that the hospital staff will comply

Originally Posted by commiecat

So it's all about salary and everything should be tiered according to wealth? I'm all for people being able to afford luxuries, but I do not think that health care is one of them. You focus on salary but I think the more key term is that she works which means she also contributes to the economy. Regardless of your salary you depend upon consumers at some level.

I think the opposition is more focused on the minority of people who will somehow take advantage of the system and consequently steal tax dollars, instead of the majority of decent, contributing citizens that this will benefit.

Commie - you have an active imagination. Where do you come up with your replies? "So it's all about salary and everything should be tiered according to wealth?" What???

I asked her a simple question based on her statement that we all should help raise the standard of living for everyone. I just wanted to know how she, as part of the "we" she stated, and a person apparently earning minimum wage, intended to help the "everyone" she mentioned, including a person such as smokelaw1, who claims he earns about ten times minimum wage, and all I got in return was diatribe!

And then she blames me for her smoking! And also equates slavery with the legitimate working off of a debt! What a dishonor to all those who currently are, and at one time were, actual slaves! I thought you libs were supposed to be compassionate.

And now you invent some crazy statement that I never made about everything tiered to wealth and salary?

Geez! Maybe I should start smoking!

hoglahoo - Nope, they can't. And while it isn't technically kosher for the hospitals to eat the bills, they are doing so more and more frequently. The chances of the debt being paid are virtually zero, so it makes more sense for them to spread the debt out over those who are insured.

So here's the irony. We already have public health. But only the wealthy are paying for it, and they're paying the highest possible amount for it (emergency treatment).

So if you guys are so worried about your damn money, that right there is a good reason why we need universal health care. You're already paying for it. But you could be paying a lot less, and getting a lot more out of it.

I, someone who isn't particularly well-to-do, am offering to help you pay for it and give you something back for it. Why won't you accept?

hardblues - You seem to have this picture in your mind that poor people are a bunch of fat welfare queens who have spent their entire lives meticulously planning how to steal from the rich while doing as little as possible.

Your entire lifestyle is based on what the government thinks you're entitled to, and what all of us collectively are paying for, as commiecat's quote demonstrates quite humorously. That's how modern living works. You simply wouldn't be able to set up or pay for all of it on your own. Even if you had the money, you wouldn't have enough hours in the day.

You're riding on the back of entitlement just as much as everyone else. The only difference between you and them is that you got lucky and happen to have some extra luxury money. Money you can only have because the people and the government believe you're already entitled to an all-expenses-paid modern lifestyle.

Actually, that's not true. There's another difference between you and them.

They can see, through the lense of poverty, not their own sense of need, but an entire community of people in need. If you honestly think these people are sitting back and eating grapes while they get their big fat welfare checks, you're delusional.

No one is out to steal your money. Stop protecting it like a baby. I sure as hell don't want it, if this is what money does to people. Keep your money, and I'll keep my human compassion.

All we're asking is for you to give back to the society which has propped you up on its shoulders all your life.

Originally Posted by honedright

With your minimum wage job, and young enough to still be covered under your parents plan, how are you going to do your part to raise the standard of living for someone who earns 10 times your salary and pays for their own plan?

I'm sure she pays her taxes. So she's doing her part.

Originally Posted by honedright

Commie - you have an active imagination. Where do you come up with your replies? "So it's all about salary and everything should be tiered according to wealth?" What???

I asked her a simple question based on her statement that we all should help raise the standard of living for everyone. I just wanted to know how she, as part of the "we" she stated, and a person apparently earning minimum wage, intended to help the "everyone" she mentioned, including a person such as smokelaw1, who claims he earns about ten times minimum wage, and all I got in return was diatribe!

And then she blames me for her smoking! And also equates slavery with the legitimate working off of a debt! What a dishonor to all those who currently are, and at one time were, actual slaves! I thought you libs were supposed to be compassionate.

And now you invent some crazy statement that I never made about everything tiered to wealth and salary?

Geez! Maybe I should start smoking!

The answer to your question is obvious. Since everyone is paying for it, "everyone" includes me. And given that I have fewer means than you do, and I'm still more willing to do it than you are, that's a lot.

You think telling people they have to spend the next 20 years cleaning bed pans is "legitimately working off debt?" Maybe in Iran, but in this country we believe people are free.

Originally Posted by MistressNomad

You think telling people they have to spend the next 20 years cleaning bed pans is "legitimately working off debt?" Maybe in Iran, but in this country we believe people are free.

Free to take, but not to give back? If someone saved your life, and you had no other way to repay them but to work 20 years (your number, not mine), is that too much? Hell, I spent 20 years just repaying my student loans. You'd think life had more value than that.