posted on September 3, 2003 06:27:17 AM new
RE: Emergency Health Care RELAXED by BUSH
Many poor people who have no health insurance are forced to rely
on emergency room care. This option which has been available regardless
of ability to pay is being compromised by the Bush administration.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 2 — The Bush administration is relaxing rules that say hospitals have to examine and treat people who require emergency medical care, regardless of their ability to pay.
Under the new rule, which takes effect on Nov. 10, patients might find it more difficult to obtain certain types of emergency care at some hospitals or clinics that hospitals own and operate.
posted on September 3, 2003 10:45:16 AM new
Even those with "coverage" may be adversly affected.
"But Dr. Robert A. Bitterman, an emergency physician at the Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, N.C., said: "The new rule could aggravate an existing problem. Specialists are not accepting on-call duties as frequently as we would like. As a result, hospital emergency departments lack coverage for various specialties like neurosurgery, orthopedics and ophthalmology. The new rule could make it more difficult for patients to get timely access to those specialists."
posted on September 3, 2003 11:18:48 AM new
While not going into this specific rule, since I haven't heard all the details, something that liberals seem to miss is that the more rules, the worse it is for everyone. My sister is an emergency room nurse and has told me some horror stories. While Medicare won't pay for car service to the doctor, they will pay for ambulance rides to the emergency room. So patients who don't want to pay $10 for a car service to a doctor will call in an emergency and tie up an ambulance and the emergency room at a cost of over $100 paid for by your taxes. In my neighborhood there are several ambulette services charging $100 or so per ride, all paid for by your taxes. But you still have to arrange your own transportation to your own doctor at your expense.
Medicare won't cover tylenol, so patients often come to the emergency room when they
have a headache. They are given tylenol free because its the only way to get rid of them.
Remember triage? In times of war and emergency, medical personnel had to decide which patients to treat based on which were the bigger emergency AND which had the greatest chance of survival. Sometimes someone was so damaged that the decision was made not to treat them because the limited resources could be better spent treating someone who had a better chance of survival.
In some hospitals today, triage works BACKWARD. My daughter at 4 months old had 105 temperature late one night and we rushed to the emergency room. We found another couple with a child about the same age who also had 105 and had been waiting for FOUR HOURS! Every time it was their turn, the police walked in with another drug addict and hospital rules said they get priority treatment. What a crazy world! Children who are sick due to no fault of their and who want to survive are ignored, while crazies who are trying to kill themselves are treated and released so they can kill themselves the next day.
What we need is a law that defines EMERGENCY and gives medical personnel the right to toss out the parasites that are destroying the system.
But the liberals won't understand this until they are in the emergency room for some serious problem being ignored while the drug addicts and the gomers get all the attention.
posted on September 3, 2003 11:25:22 AM new
yisgood - You make many great points.
And you also said: In my neighborhood there are several ambulette services charging $100 or so per ride, all paid for by your taxes. When we brought my husband home in an ambulance the bill was $355.00 for a non-ememgency ride home.
I can only imagine what is charged in big cities.
posted on September 3, 2003 11:35:32 AM new
"we brought my husband home in an ambulance the bill was $355.00 for a non-ememgency ride home."
My grandmother ran into the same thing, five mile drive home, total bill $300. But this was TEN YEARS ago. My mother would have driven her home for nothing, but they released her early and didn't tell anyone.
The whole health care issue is a mess. You can't go 100% free enterprise, but you can't 100% socialist either. It's always going to be something in the middle, and no one will ever be completely satisfied.
One thing that MUST be done is to remove all the lawsuits and reduce the outrageous malpractive claims. Sometimes people die in the operating room. It happens. Even doctors can miss something once in a while. The negligent ones need to be removed, but lawsuits have to stop.
-------------------
Replay Media
Games of all kinds!
posted on September 3, 2003 12:19:37 PM new
replaymedia - I fully agree. And when we see what a big mess that's been made in these different/separate government 'overseeyers' departments, it only supports my position that to give the goverment total control over our health care system [read socialized medical care] would be asking for more of the same.
----------
It has always been my position that we have got to quit spending our limited medical resources on illegal immigrants too. If that same money were used on our own, many more American's would be able to get their medical needs met in a more timely fashion.
from www.azcentral.com:
AHCCCS [Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System] now spends $75 million to $80 million a year for emergency care of approximately 200 to 300 undocumented immigrants a month, with about a third of the money coming from the state, and the rest from the federal government, Lopez said.
The five cases covered by Thursday's ruling added up to hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of care but the ruling [by the Arizona Supreme Court, this month] will impact larger amounts of money for patients at other hospitals, he said.
The ruling came amid intensifying debate in Arizona over illegal immigration and government services provided undocumented immigrants.
posted on September 3, 2003 12:22:28 PM new
With regard to law suits that is a personal decision. Twice I could have easily filed suit against various doctors, technicians and hospitals. I did not as I realize that s@#t happens and although mistakes were clearly made there was no malice involved albeit some sloppy work for sure. I believe that if the right to sue were to be restricted not only would s@$t happen more frequently but there would be no legal recourse to take when it did and the injured party would be left as the injured party. Whether suit is warranted or not is a personal decision, the state should not decide for you or in advance against you.
As to medicare not covering tylenol, medicare does not cover any medication taken as a out patient. They only cover what is administered in either a hospital or clinical setting.
People in need are not parasites they are people in need trying to survive, nothing more. Your tone shows you for what you are. You consider me to be liberal and yes I have been to the emergency room. I've seen the dead, the dying, the forgotten and the good people who try to help them all with painfully few resources.
posted on September 3, 2003 04:53:03 PM new
And as normal You just can't do ANTHING to please a LIP-ERAL
Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34
posted on September 3, 2003 05:40:54 PM new
dave - I believe that if the right to sue were to be restricted not only would s@$t happen more frequently but there would be no legal recourse to take when it did and the injured party would be left as the injured party. Whether suit is warranted or not is a personal decision, the state should not decide for you or in advance against you.
How do you see this same issue in a total government supported health care system? Do you believe it would be set up so that there were unrestricted [amounts] lawsuits? I don't. I believe the government would be making all decisions on what care is necessary and what is not. I'd like to keep those decisions between my doctor and myself....without government intervention.
posted on September 3, 2003 08:24:21 PM new
I'm unsure as to the form that will be eventually adopted. I can say I am generally opposed to limiting a citizens ability to seek the protection of the courts in most every instance.
Currently decisions are hampered by third parties in the form of insurers. HMO's and PPO's make many determinations based on financial considerations rather than your best chance for a successful medical outcome. Of course if your pockets are deep enough it is possible to obtain whatever care is needed but few are that financially sound. Many procedures are never put on the table for the consideration based on the HMO's primary allegiance to it's stockholders rather than it's patients.
In my own experience I have had my PPO refuse payment for a prescribed drug for the duration it was prescribed by my physician and request he consider a less effective alternative (cheaper drug). At the time I was suffering acute bacterial peritonitis a life threatening condition, I had a fever of 105 degrees and was exhibiting rigors (violent uncontrollable shaking looks like extreme chills). I really did not have the time, or inclination to fight with the insurer at that moment.
Back to the point I see any program established or would wish it to be run as a large PPO in which decisions be made by the patient or guardian of the patient in the case of a minor and their physician(S). Physicians would be choosen much as they are currently. It should have a drug program as part of it's feature unlike Medicare in it's present form. I believe that the patient and the medical professionals would benefit and if there is a loser it would be the insurance companies as a large cash cow will be taken from them.
Republican, the other white meat!
