Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 105

Thread: Pawlenty: Let ER's turn away patients to cut costs

  1. #41
    Guru
    nonpareil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,108

    Re: Pawlenty: Let ER's turn away patients to cut costs

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    We not talking about emergency or critical cases here. It's the cases that should be in the clincs that are the issue.
    I think all of them are the issue. What I've seen was that in all cases, when the hospitals turn them away, they take the person home to deal with as best they can. "Capitalism stepping into the void and filling it" would be in the form of charlatan giving out traditional medicine that do harm as often as they do good. Real doctors have to feed their family too, so they have to take only cases where the patient could actually afford their rates. So I'm curious how else capitalism can come in and fill the void? Because capitalism as I know it is amoral, that means, if people have to die because they don't have the money to cure themselves, they die. There's no right or wrong about it. Just profit or no profit.

    But let's concentrate on the "cases that should be in the clinics". How do we classify them?

  2. #42
    Guru
    nonpareil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,108

    Re: Pawlenty: Let ER's turn away patients to cut costs

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    Lives are generally considered to be more important than money. But for non emergency cases, people should be encouraged to use less expensive treatment methods, such as the county health department or some other public clinic if they are unable to pay a private practitioner.
    But all those requires public money. Someone else has to pay for them. And were those people asked that their money be paid to treat these people who can't be bothered to buy their own insurance? Would all of them have agreed if they were asked?

  3. #43
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Pawlenty: Let ER's turn away patients to cut costs

    Quote Originally Posted by b.larset View Post
    you dont directly pay its subsidized thru insurance. start payin directly costs will drop. also lets compete for hospitals i say lets put a hospital and dr. on every corner and do away with health insurance. you direct pay for your animals care why not your own?
    I'll let my pet go if the treatment is too expensive. Bye, bye puddy cat.

  4. #44
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Pawlenty: Let ER's turn away patients to cut costs

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    I think there would ultimately be less objection to having these types of low-cost clinics than there would be to completely revamping the insurance system. My parents are absolutely freaked about the possibility of losing my mom's doctor. She has a rare terminal illness that she's really struggled with until she found a good doctor who has really helped her. I have hypothyroidism and I have the same feelings about my doctor, who makes evening phone calls to his patients when needed.
    I've seen nothing that would cause her to worry about losing her doctor. Perhaps the fear campaign has done its job on her.

  5. #45
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Pawlenty: Let ER's turn away patients to cut costs

    Quote Originally Posted by nonpareil View Post
    But all those requires public money. Someone else has to pay for them. And were those people asked that their money be paid to treat these people who can't be bothered to buy their own insurance? Would all of them have agreed if they were asked?
    It doesn't matter if they agree. We live in a society with representative government and they got their vote too.

    The government does stuff all the time and never gave me veto rights over anything other than my vote. Why should people who disagree have special rights?
    Last edited by tacomancer; 02-26-10 at 02:52 PM.

  6. #46
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Pawlenty: Let ER's turn away patients to cut costs

    Quote Originally Posted by b.larset View Post
    you dont directly pay its subsidized thru insurance. start payin directly costs will drop. also lets compete for hospitals i say lets put a hospital and dr. on every corner and do away with health insurance. you direct pay for your animals care why not your own?
    Because there is a world of difference in letting a cat die vs letting your sister die. That emotional bond is easier to extort.

  7. #47
    Guru
    nonpareil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,108

    Re: Pawlenty: Let ER's turn away patients to cut costs

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    It doesn't matter if they agree. We live in a society with representative government and they got their vote too.

    The government does stuff all the time and never gave me veto rights over anything other than my vote. Why should people who disagree have special rights?
    Because:

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea
    Whatever solution we come up with must not take money from peoples' pockets without their consent. Or should it? If it does, then do we slide down the slippery slope to Socialism? If we do, then is this still America, or do we begin to say goodbye to a system of government that has has worked for more than 2 centuries?
    ..

  8. #48
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Pawlenty: Let ER's turn away patients to cut costs

    I don't see how that applies. Nobody is totally happy with the government because it has to serve all people, not just one person (not that it does a great job at it, but that is another thread). People have been fighting over the proper role for the government since before the constitution and people will continue to fight long after we are dead. If a certain segment of the population doesn't like something, than they need to muster up the votes to have their way.

    And to say people don't have consent is also silly, we can all vote. Its an imperfect system, i admit, but we all have a say.

    However, to say that socialism will change our government is nonsense. It still has congressmen, senators, the president, the supreme court, the various agencies, state government, local government, etc. Its all still there and still basically doing the same thing.
    Last edited by tacomancer; 02-26-10 at 08:35 PM.

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Pawlenty: Let ER's turn away patients to cut costs

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    If people can set aside their visceral "oh noes!" reaction, they might see the argument from the other perspective. Because hospitals are losing such a huge amount of money on their ER's, they're closing the ERs and sometimes the hospitals.

    Which one is worse for the community: A solvent hospital with an ER that turns away a small subset of injuries, or an insolvent hospital that closes altogether?
    People first! Republican greedmongering second!

  10. #50
    User Goyboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Classified. I don't want the Alien Task Force to find me.
    Last Seen
    10-10-10 @ 07:31 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    142

    Re: Pawlenty: Let ER's turn away patients to cut costs

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Before anybody starts making statements about Pawlenty being a heartless Conservative, let's set the ground rules for this discussion, and get it straight on what Pawlenty proposes. He is talking about minor medical conditions, which are not emergencies.
    Wouldn't it be helpful to post the actual EMTALA laws for everyone to see?

    Here are excerpts from EMTALA:

    TITLE 42, CHAPTER 7, SUBCHAPTER XVIII, Part E, § 1395dd

    (a) Medical screening requirement

    In the case of a hospital that has a hospital emergency department, if any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to the emergency department and a request is made on the individual’s behalf for examination or treatment for a medical condition, the hospital must provide for an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the hospital’s emergency department, including ancillary services routinely available to the emergency department, to determine whether or not an emergency medical condition (within the meaning of subsection (e)(1) of this section) exists.

    (b) Necessary stabilizing treatment for emergency medical conditions and labor

    (1) In general
    If any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to a hospital and the hospital determines that the individual has an emergency medical condition, the hospital must provide either—
    (A) within the staff and facilities available at the hospital, for such further medical examination and such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition, or
    (B) for transfer of the individual to another medical facility in accordance with subsection (c) of this section.


    [Sections c and d skipped for the sake of brevity.]


    e) Definitions
    In this section:
    (1) The term “emergency medical condition” means—
    (A) a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in—
    (i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,
    (ii) serious impairment to bodily functions, or
    (iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part; or

    (B) with respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions—
    (i) that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or
    (ii) that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.


    If I am not mistaken, nothing in EMTALA requires an emergency room staff to treat a patient for a non-emergency problem once the emergency room staff has determined that the patient has a non-emergency problem.

    If I am correct, then Pawlenty is mistaken about EMTALA needing changed.
    The height of wisdom is to say, "I do not know." -Socrates

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •