• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What should we do with emergency medical care, EMTALA

One of our healthcare cost problems appears to be EMTALA mandated care


  • Total voters
    7
  • Poll closed .
I get kind of tired of this response. Quite of a few conservatives think most of these issue can be reduced to a question of abuses reducing efficiency, when they can't be.

The majority of people who go to the emergency room, and the most expensive to care for, need to be there to live and/or be functional in society. There's no easy way out of that. Similarly, the longevity of most appliers continuing reliance on unemployment benefits derive from the general lack of opportunities and the need to take a serious loss in assets and long term investments in order to pursue the remaining ones, not from laziness.

Seriously, if reducing abuses could solve these problems, we would have done it already.

Agree with Samsmart in spirit, but I would have to hear his reasoning on the sales tax first.

Actually, she's right. My best friend works in a hospital and the ER is abused much more often than it is used (properly).
 
My answer isn't on the poll. Implement universal healthcare so those who cannot afford care will have the option of not using ERs for primary care. ERs are absolutely the most costly way to render primary care, but the current US system leaves this as the only option for millions of people who make too much to qualify for medicaid, but don't make enough to afford health insurance.

^^ Yup. It will cheapen care because it will reduce that number drastically, and it will also make care preventive rather than reactionary.

Why do you want to enslave the American people?

Why do you want hard-working Americans to not receive a-one healthcare?
 
And yet it may still be better than what private insurance providers do.

How could it be better, when the public option would end up replacing the private option, and the government would then be telling your doctor how to treat you?
 
We don't need EMTALA. What we need is universal health care. We'd save a lot of money, have better access to health care, and a healthier population as well.

But, since we haven't yet joined the civilized world, we'd better keep EMTALA, or we'll have even more people dying of treatable illnesses and injuries. Moreover, the "no socialized medicine" voices won't be able to point to emergency room treatment and say, "See? We do have universal health care. Anyone can get patched together."
 
How could it be better, when the public option would end up replacing the private option, and the government would then be telling your doctor how to treat you?
My experience is that you have got this backwards. My private insurance had me going to the Dr. that gave them the lowest quotes; he was the only one in their system. It was Medicare that discovered that he wasn't sterilizing and was reusing blades etc. And he was billing for more expensive procedures than were actually done. Many private insurance companies were using him. He lost his mansion on the lake and spent some time in jail thanks to the government. What is a private companies motivation anyway, quality care or low cost?
And, recall I'm suggesting that people buy extra private coverage for stuff that is beyond what is considered basic standard care. If everyone got at least basic standard care the total cost of health care would be significantly less.
 
Last edited:
we live in a society that doesn't let people die in the street just because they don't have money. i think that's a good thing.

Agreed. Though I am conservative, I cannot be inhumane and block life-saving, emergency treatment for the poor.
 
How could it be better, when the public option would end up replacing the private option, and the government would then be telling your doctor how to treat you?

Because the politicians running it will make sure I get taken care of to keep my vote, and so it will be better than private insurance companies telling my doctor how to treat me.
 
I think a bigger issue is the use of ERs as diagnostic tools for non-fatal illnesses. Going to the ER because the kid has a 99.7 temp and a sniffle, especially if you don't plan to pay, is abusive and wasteful. It clogs waiting rooms and wastes resources. Let's fix that, because true emergent care for life-threatening circumstances is a much smaller issue.

This is exactly how I feel. I would like to add a couple of things. I think the American mind set has also changed in the last couple of generations. Previous generations tended to only seek treatment for semi serious or serious issues that absolutely required medical attention. Now we seem to expect medical attention anytime we are not feeling perfect. Have a cold or flu? They go to the doctors. Have a small cut that might get a couple of stitches, go to the doctors. Sprain a limb? go to the doctors.... People that are on government medical assistant programs, are insured, or seek treatment and then refuse to pay with these minor issues only drive up the cost of medical treatment for the rest of us.

Secondly is the right to refuse repeat abusers. A acquaintance of mine has worked in the medical field for 30+ years. She volunteers her time to free clinics on her off days to help people who may not be able to afford medical treatment. Her biggest complaint, drug addicts that continuously seek treatment in an attempt to receive prescribed pain killers. While they can be refused prescribed medications if no causes are found from my understanding they still must see the patient and waste a lot of time and resources continuously verifying no medical conditions exists. Now refusing to see these troublesome patients may seem harsh to many in case of a real issue but I believe if you cry wolf to many times you deserve to be eaten.
 
Actually, she's right. My best friend works in a hospital and the ER is abused much more often than it is used (properly).
What most people miss about this until you do the research is that the improper use of the ER for things one should get done at the GP cost a lot more than getting them done at the GP; BUT, because they are small issues the total percentage of ER cost that these GP things come to is actuall quite small. (Sorry for the long sentence.)
These sites have info on these things.
http://www.emtala.com/062001.pdf
The Impact of Unreimbursed Care on the Emergency Physician
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Back
Top Bottom