View Poll Results: Should the hospital treat you or wait until they know if you can pay

Voters
36. You may not vote on this poll
  • The hospital should treat you

    31 86.11%
  • They should find out if you can pay before treating you

    2 5.56%
  • Rutabaga

    3 8.33%
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 86

Thread: Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

  1. #31
    The Light of Truth
    Northern Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:56 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,970

    Re: Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

    Care should be provided. Most people in the U.S. have insurance and with Obamacare that also includes low income people. Worst case scenario the treatment cannot be fully paid and the person ends up on a long-term payment plan.

    Letting them die when the resource is available would be unconscionable. Imagine if it was Einstein or someone of similar brilliance being permitted to die so the hospital could preserve it's bottom line? This the United States not Botswana. We can afford it.

  2. #32
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,062

    Re: Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    The thread is not about treating non-emergency conditions in the ER, nor is it about the high cost of medical care. Please don't derail this thread
    Who died and made you thread god? Try complaining to the mods its not your job dude.

  3. #33
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
    Care should be provided. Most people in the U.S. have insurance and with Obamacare that also includes low income people. Worst case scenario the treatment cannot be fully paid and the person ends up on a long-term payment plan.

    Letting them die when the resource is available would be unconscionable. Imagine if it was Einstein or someone of similar brilliance being permitted to die so the hospital could preserve it's bottom line? This the United States not Botswana. We can afford it.
    It's already been that way since 1986. The question is a little late to the game.

  4. #34
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Doesn't make much sense considering you posted the answer in the thread title (EMTALA). And that is precisely what the act mandates. In truth, number 2 makes it really difficult for treating personnel. Not because of the payment issue but because they have no idea of allergies or drug contraindications. Makes treating your condition a crapshoot.

    Generally with true medical emergencies ER's triage them to the top of the list and at the same time the admitting personnel try to identify and hunt down insurance info.
    EMTALA's existence means that they *will* treat the person, but I asked if they *should*. However, you're correct that I probably shouldn't have made that the title, or gone into more detail about why I made that the title.

    To be clear, I started the thread because in recent days I've seen a number of posters argue that the requirement that ER's treat emergencies without regard to the person's ability to pay is the cause of our high health costs.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  5. #35
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,062

    Re: Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    That price inflation is the result of thousands of "free" ER visits and patching up the gang bangers/illegal aliens. The problem is that even with PPACA there will be 30 million uninsured crowding into the ERs for "free" care. Look how RomneyCare worked in MA; the ER use actually went up after "everybody" got insured.
    I agree and pretty much said so much in my last post.

  6. #36
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post

    To be clear, I started the thread because in recent days I've seen a number of posters argue that the requirement that ER's treat emergencies without regard to the person's ability to pay is the cause of our high health costs.
    Well, that is true, to a certain extent. If someone goes into the er and is in crisis, requiring surgery and/or ICU treatment, their bill is going to be exceedingly high, and if they don't have the ability to pay, then the hospital absorbs the cost, takes a loss, or raises their rates. It really depends on what the specific health problem is. Someone who goes in for dehydration, and needs hospitalization to rehydrate, isn't going to be nearly the cost that a serious MVA patient will be.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  7. #37
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    EMTALA's existence means that they *will* treat the person, but I asked if they *should*. However, you're correct that I probably shouldn't have made that the title, or gone into more detail about why I made that the title.

    To be clear, I started the thread because in recent days I've seen a number of posters argue that the requirement that ER's treat emergencies without regard to the person's ability to pay is the cause of our high health costs.
    Yeah, and I thought that was debunked. Guess it's one of those that keeps on coming up like some zombie. Yes, some folks do eventually get their ER visit for free, but even then, unless they've managed to convince a bankruptcy judge any furture earnings will likely be garnished.

  8. #38
    Ho, ho, ho.
    Superfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    East Coast
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    21,706

    Re: Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

    Of course they should be treated. I thought it was the law - even in a privately funded hospital, you have to stabilize the patient. Once he's stabilized, then you send him to a federally funded hospital, where he can't be turned away.

  9. #39
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    Well, that is true, to a certain extent. If someone goes into the er and is in crisis, requiring surgery and/or ICU treatment, their bill is going to be exceedingly high, and if they don't have the ability to pay, then the hospital absorbs the cost, takes a loss, or raises their rates. It really depends on what the specific health problem is. Someone who goes in for dehydration, and needs hospitalization to rehydrate, isn't going to be nearly the cost that a serious MVA patient will be.
    That bit about the hospital absorbing the cost is not true. Even if the person doesn't have the ability to pay right now, it's like any other debt - it doesn't just disappear if you can't pay it.

  10. #40
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    Well, that is true, to a certain extent. If someone goes into the er and is in crisis, requiring surgery and/or ICU treatment, their bill is going to be exceedingly high, and if they don't have the ability to pay, then the hospital absorbs the cost, takes a loss, or raises their rates. It really depends on what the specific health problem is. Someone who goes in for dehydration, and needs hospitalization to rehydrate, isn't going to be nearly the cost that a serious MVA patient will be.
    No doubt it's expensive.

    Yet, many other nations have the same requirement but don't have the high costs we have. That indicates, at least to me, that EMTALA is not the cause of our high costs for medical care.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •