[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Euthanasia is unethical in dealing with people. [/quote]
Whoah–unethical or immoral? Some of us believe in going out with dignity instead of lying around in pain draining resources, or wandering around as a vegetable not even remembering our loved ones.
[quote]Racer377 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
^Law prevents hospitals from turning away life threatening injuries from the ER due to lack of insurance/ability to pay.[/quote]
The way the hospital would handle some one with no means to pay the bill , would be the equivalant of giving some one a bandaid for a broken bone [/quote]
Pure unadulterated Horse puckey.
I was run over by a tanker truck, with no insurance at the time. I got a helluva lot more than a bandaid. 6 figures worth, actually.
[/quote]
Another thing you may not have had Health Insurance , but that truck was covered by a multi Million dollar policy.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Racer377 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
^Law prevents hospitals from turning away life threatening injuries from the ER due to lack of insurance/ability to pay.[/quote]
The way the hospital would handle some one with no means to pay the bill , would be the equivalant of giving some one a bandaid for a broken bone [/quote]
Pure unadulterated Horse puckey.
I was run over by a tanker truck, with no insurance at the time. I got a helluva lot more than a bandaid. 6 figures worth, actually.
[/quote]
Another thing you may not have had Health Insurance , but that truck was covered by a multi Million dollar policy. [/quote]
That policy didn’t mean shit to the hospital, who had no way of knowing when or if I’d ever get a judgement against it. For all they knew, I was the cause of the accident and had no claim. (not actually the case, but that wasn’t resolved until 4 years had passed)
[quote]Racer377 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Racer377 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
^Law prevents hospitals from turning away life threatening injuries from the ER due to lack of insurance/ability to pay.[/quote]
The way the hospital would handle some one with no means to pay the bill , would be the equivalant of giving some one a bandaid for a broken bone [/quote]
Pure unadulterated Horse puckey.
I was run over by a tanker truck, with no insurance at the time. I got a helluva lot more than a bandaid. 6 figures worth, actually.
[/quote]
Another thing you may not have had Health Insurance , but that truck was covered by a multi Million dollar policy. [/quote]
That policy didn’t mean shit to the hospital, who had no way of knowing when or if I’d ever get a judgement against it. For all they knew, I was the cause of the accident and had no claim. (not actually the case, but that wasn’t resolved until 4 years had passed)
[/quote]
What you don’t think the hospital knew you were run over by a commercial vehicle ? I bet they even knew the name of the trucking Co.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Racer377 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Racer377 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
^Law prevents hospitals from turning away life threatening injuries from the ER due to lack of insurance/ability to pay.[/quote]
The way the hospital would handle some one with no means to pay the bill , would be the equivalant of giving some one a bandaid for a broken bone [/quote]
Pure unadulterated Horse puckey.
I was run over by a tanker truck, with no insurance at the time. I got a helluva lot more than a bandaid. 6 figures worth, actually.
[/quote]
Another thing you may not have had Health Insurance , but that truck was covered by a multi Million dollar policy. [/quote]
That policy didn’t mean shit to the hospital, who had no way of knowing when or if I’d ever get a judgement against it. For all they knew, I was the cause of the accident and had no claim. (not actually the case, but that wasn’t resolved until 4 years had passed)
[/quote]
What you don’t think the hospital knew you were run over by a commercial vehicle ? I bet they even knew the name of the trucking Co.
[/quote]
Well, maybe you’re not all that up to speed on the law, (which seems to be the case) but if the accident was my fault, their insurance doesn’t mean shit. In order to get a judgement, you have to establish negligence on the part of the alleged tortfeasor. Moreover, you also have to prove damages. If can’t do both of these things, you don’t get a dime.
You think hospitals have attorneys on staff that review a case in seconds and make a determination on whether its a winnable case before deciding whether to provide or (illegally) deny treatment? What kind of retarded left wing blog did you find that little gem on? lol.
And no, they didn’t know the name of the company or their insurance carrier.
[quote]Racer377 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Racer377 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Racer377 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
^Law prevents hospitals from turning away life threatening injuries from the ER due to lack of insurance/ability to pay.[/quote]
The way the hospital would handle some one with no means to pay the bill , would be the equivalant of giving some one a bandaid for a broken bone [/quote]
Pure unadulterated Horse puckey.
I was run over by a tanker truck, with no insurance at the time. I got a helluva lot more than a bandaid. 6 figures worth, actually.
[/quote]
Another thing you may not have had Health Insurance , but that truck was covered by a multi Million dollar policy. [/quote]
That policy didn’t mean shit to the hospital, who had no way of knowing when or if I’d ever get a judgement against it. For all they knew, I was the cause of the accident and had no claim. (not actually the case, but that wasn’t resolved until 4 years had passed)
[/quote]
What you don’t think the hospital knew you were run over by a commercial vehicle ? I bet they even knew the name of the trucking Co.
[/quote]
Well, maybe you’re not all that up to speed on the law, (which seems to be the case) but if the accident was my fault, their insurance doesn’t mean shit. In order to get a judgement, you have to establish negligence on the part of the alleged tortfeasor. Moreover, you also have to prove damages. If can’t do both of these things, you don’t get a dime.
You think hospitals have attorneys on staff that review a case in seconds and make a determination on whether its a winnable case before deciding whether to provide or (illegally) deny treatment? What kind of retarded left wing blog did you find that little gem on? lol.
And no, they didn’t know the name of the company or their insurance carrier. [/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Racer377 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Racer377 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Racer377 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
^Law prevents hospitals from turning away life threatening injuries from the ER due to lack of insurance/ability to pay.[/quote]
The way the hospital would handle some one with no means to pay the bill , would be the equivalant of giving some one a bandaid for a broken bone [/quote]
Pure unadulterated Horse puckey.
I was run over by a tanker truck, with no insurance at the time. I got a helluva lot more than a bandaid. 6 figures worth, actually.
[/quote]
Another thing you may not have had Health Insurance , but that truck was covered by a multi Million dollar policy. [/quote]
That policy didn’t mean shit to the hospital, who had no way of knowing when or if I’d ever get a judgement against it. For all they knew, I was the cause of the accident and had no claim. (not actually the case, but that wasn’t resolved until 4 years had passed)
[/quote]
What you don’t think the hospital knew you were run over by a commercial vehicle ? I bet they even knew the name of the trucking Co.
[/quote]
Well, maybe you’re not all that up to speed on the law, (which seems to be the case) but if the accident was my fault, their insurance doesn’t mean shit. In order to get a judgement, you have to establish negligence on the part of the alleged tortfeasor. Moreover, you also have to prove damages. If can’t do both of these things, you don’t get a dime.
You think hospitals have attorneys on staff that review a case in seconds and make a determination on whether its a winnable case before deciding whether to provide or (illegally) deny treatment? What kind of retarded left wing blog did you find that little gem on? lol.
And no, they didn’t know the name of the company or their insurance carrier. [/quote]
[/quote]
Did the hospital get paid ? The hospital would be forced to render emergency care but the follow up care could have been severely effected if the Hospital thought they may not get paid
Ummm… guys… are we a little off topic? Isn’t the problem not that people who have a heart attack get treated in an emergency room, but those with heart problems cannot see a doc until the heart attack? (just an example, like).
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Ummm… guys… are we a little off topic? Isn’t the problem not that people who have a heart attack get treated in an emergency room, but those with heart problems cannot see a doc until the heart attack? (just an example, like). [/quote]
Or diabetics who can’t afford their $20 monthly prescriptions, but we’ll lose thousands when we treat them in the ER after they crash?
[quote]ether_bunny wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Ummm… guys… are we a little off topic? Isn’t the problem not that people who have a heart attack get treated in an emergency room, but those with heart problems cannot see a doc until the heart attack? (just an example, like). [/quote]
Or diabetics who can’t afford their $20 monthly prescriptions, but we’ll lose thousands when we treat them in the ER after they crash?
[/quote]
Who the hell can’t afford $20 a month? If I really needed $20 to buy some medicine I would be digging through trash cans and collecting cans. Or are people do dignified now adays to get their hands dirty to stay alive?
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ether_bunny wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Ummm… guys… are we a little off topic? Isn’t the problem not that people who have a heart attack get treated in an emergency room, but those with heart problems cannot see a doc until the heart attack? (just an example, like). [/quote]
Or diabetics who can’t afford their $20 monthly prescriptions, but we’ll lose thousands when we treat them in the ER after they crash?
[/quote]
Who the hell can’t afford $20 a month? If I really needed $20 to buy some medicine I would be digging through trash cans and collecting cans. Or are people do dignified now adays to get their hands dirty to stay alive?[/quote]
How barbaric, you can’t expect citizens to fend for themselves when big brother has trained them to look to government for this type of support.
You do realize that the vast majority of Americans are about 1/3rd as tough as the typical American who founded this great country. What made this country great was individualism, and what will ruin it is government trying to play nurse maid.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ether_bunny wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Ummm… guys… are we a little off topic? Isn’t the problem not that people who have a heart attack get treated in an emergency room, but those with heart problems cannot see a doc until the heart attack? (just an example, like). [/quote]
Or diabetics who can’t afford their $20 monthly prescriptions, but we’ll lose thousands when we treat them in the ER after they crash?
[/quote]
Who the hell can’t afford $20 a month? If I really needed $20 to buy some medicine I would be digging through trash cans and collecting cans. Or are people do dignified now adays to get their hands dirty to stay alive?[/quote]
Most of the people I’ve known who have skimped on their own health have done so for the benefit of their family.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Well we do know that Massachusets care, whatever the name is, has a higher rejection rate than private companies and pays more per patient than them.
This does not bode well.
[/quote]
I actually don’t know that. Do you have evidence I could see?[/quote]
Among large insurers, government coverage (medicare/medicade) have the highest claim rejection rates. I posted a whole report on it a while back. [/quote]
So Massachusettscare, medicare and medicate all have the highest claim rejection rates? Further, you believe that MassCare pays more per patient than private companies?
Sorry I missed your earlier postings, but these seem like interesting figures. If you are able to find any evidence to back these claims, I would like to read it.
[/quote]
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard-short.pdf
I posted more stuff a while back, but that is the AMA report card.
Having coverage and receiving treatment aren’t the same thing and spending money and getting results aren’t the same thing.
You can have coverage and be denied. Plus insurer can spend large sums of money on poor treatment options.
For example, they might spend 20 million dollars on a cancer patient who dies in 2 weeks, then deny anti-biotics to treat strep throat. Or they could simply cover less effective treatments while denying more effective ones. Those could be cases where per patient pay out could be extremely high while patient outcomes remain very low.
From what I have read, Private companies, even with lower per patient pay outs, have better patient outcomes. You have to understand it isn’t just a question of money spent, it’s a bigger question of money management. And as a general rule, the government sucks ass at that.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
Are death panels real? Not in the joking way the progressives are trying to make them but yes they are. My family went through it last year with my mother, we had people telling us quality of life cost and everything else, in the end we had to decide to either turn off life support and watch my mother, the person who gave me life slowly die of dehydration/starvation. If you think government style won’t be worse oh my friend have I got a bridge to sell you.[/quote]
So you prefer private death panels to public ones? Isn’t that the way it should be? IMO government healthcare should be “bottom of the barrel.” If people can afford healthcare, they should buy it.
That being said, my experiences with “private death panels” have been pretty bad. Growing up I can’t recall a time when we went to the hospital (my sister had a variety of illnesses and “issues”) and DIDN’T have to fight with the insurance companies over it. [/quote]
In a private system the beauty is that you can sign up for any contract to cover anything you want (some of this is no longer allowed by law). And if a company doesn’t cover what you want, you can go find coverage somewhere else (once again the federal government has screwed this up with regulation). [/quote]
I guess my experiences have been different than this, so I’m not sure if its true. For example, my college roommate has had a back problem for about a decade. As a young lawyer he was unable to obtain private health insurance because of the pre-existing conditions when he was taken off his parent’s plan. Could you elaborate on what you mean?
I guess this is a hypothetical that could be true. Do the elderly people that have been on government healthcare have a harder time with their disputes than with the current private health agencies? Given the problems that the other poster talked about as well as the ones I experienced, I guess I’m not convinced this is true yet. [/quote]
We don’t have a free market system right now though, it’s a mix. The bottom line is that he could have bought coverage, he just couldn’t have afforded it. Pre-existing conditions cost more money. Period. If you grant someone like that coverage it is going to cost money that has to be taken from someone. If not the person receiving the coverage, than from either the pocket or the coverage (denied claims) of healthier people. Granting them coverage does not increase the number of services available.[/quote]
I’m not sure I understand how this post relates to my response to you. Could you elaborate? [/quote]
I mean that current experience is not a true indicator of either system. Because the current system is a conglomeration of the 2.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
^Law prevents hospitals from turning away life threatening injuries from the ER due to lack of insurance/ability to pay.[/quote]
The way the hospital would handle some one with no means to pay the bill , would be the equivalant of giving some one a bandaid for a broken bone [/quote]
You say that, have you worked in a hospital or experienced this?
I did work at a hospital, and I am not going to say “like omg they were all basically Christ healing the lame” but by no means were the poor and injured tossed out, they received good treatment for their injuries.[/quote]
I looked , but could not find the 60 minutes Article where a Los Angeles hospital was dumping indigent patients out on the street . It happens all the time , If you have good insurance they will spend a million dollars to keep an 80 year old smoker alive . I know this for a fact. [/quote]
Don’t trust 60 Minutes. They just chase the most outrageous stories.
[quote]ether_bunny wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Ummm… guys… are we a little off topic? Isn’t the problem not that people who have a heart attack get treated in an emergency room, but those with heart problems cannot see a doc until the heart attack? (just an example, like). [/quote]
Or diabetics who can’t afford their $20 monthly prescriptions, but we’ll lose thousands when we treat them in the ER after they crash?
[/quote]
If they cannot afford $20 how do they eat and clothe themselves?