• 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!

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

Should the hospital treat you or wait until they know if you can pay

  • Total voters
    30
clownboy said:
Except to remind you both, they will still go to the ER and try to convince the admitting personnel it's an emergency. Why, because they won't have the co-pay to see their primary doctor, not to mention having to come up with the deductible. Don't pay your primary doctor, you have to go looking for another primary doctor. Don't pay the ER and you can still go back to the ER with a genuine emergency.

Our government seems incapable of thinking like a person without money.
Click to expand...

In the hospital where I work, they have managed to cut a good bit of er abuse out, with a pretty stringent triage system. The patients are triaged, with a basic assessment and workup done, and if you don't meet emergency criteria, then you are referred to a case manager, who tells you that you must pay up front, or you won't be seen further. It seems to work fairly well from what I can tell.
 
sangha said:
Sure, they can try.

But people don't get thousands and thousands of dollars of emergency treatment by fooling the ER staff. ER's across the nation knowingly and willingly treat people for non-emergency conditions.
Click to expand...

Yes they do, most of it by hospital policy to avoid lawsuits, the true lifeblood sucker.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
In the event of option #2, or missing a payment on option #1's plan, the patient has committed theft so they should be arrested just as one that removes an item from a store without paying for it would be. The idea that "society" must simply eat the cost of care by paying ridiculous prices when they can pay for care, to cover the losses incurred for those that will not pay, is insane.
Click to expand...

Theft is taking someone's property without consent or permission of that person with the intent of depriving that person of that property.The patient who received emergency medical care did not take the hospital's property without consent or permission of the hospital.It anyone took the medical care without consent or permission of the hospital it was the government.
 
sangha said:
Nope. It's not done to avoid lawsuits.
Click to expand...

I can tell you with authority it is indeed. Again we were talking about why some ERs treat non-emergency conditions.
 
lizzie said:
In the hospital where I work, they have managed to cut a good bit of er abuse out, with a pretty stringent triage system. The patients are triaged, with a basic assessment and workup done, and if you don't meet emergency criteria, then you are referred to a case manager, who tells you that you must pay up front, or you won't be seen further. It seems to work fairly well from what I can tell.
Click to expand...

Hi Lizzie,
My daughter is an RN who works in the ER. And she is totally stressed out due to the overflow of patients pouring into the ER. Most are sick but the majority tend to be people who can not get into see their family doctor for weeks. And because the hospital is cutting back due to the new laws pertaining to Obamacare, there is also a shortage of staff. She explained to me many of these people are on Medicare and Medicaid. Many doctors in private practice are choosing not to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients due to the cuts in Obamacare in payment as they already receive a fraction of what doctors/hospitals are reimbursed from private insurance. And add to that the additional costs to the physicians to cover all the bureaucratic red tape government insurance comes with and it is like operating in the red with these patients. Those doctors that do accept Medicare and Medicaid are overbooked and waiting periods to get in to see a doctor can be several weeks. This is sending more folks to the ER for treatment. We have got doctors around my area who have opted out of Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare and strictly operate on cash, check and credit cards and ironically their fees are about 50% less than those who do accept the above mentioned. They have cut the number of patients they see and in doing so are able to see a patient without delay. I am not surprised to see this happening in my area because the program that Obamacare was designed around is Romneycare implemented in 2006 in Massachusetts and for the past few years they have been experiencing doctor shortages for the very same reasons. In Mass. most people have insurance but many do not have doctors.
 
clownboy said:
I can tell you with authority it is indeed. Again we were talking about why some ERs treat non-emergency conditions.
Click to expand...

Right, we were talking about non-emergency care. ER's have no obligation to provide non-emergency care, so how can they avoid lawsuits by providing non-emergency care?
 
vesper said:
Hi Lizzie,
My daughter is an RN who works in the ER. And she is totally stressed out due to the overflow of patients pouring into the ER. Most are sick but the majority tend to be people who can not get into see their family doctor for weeks. And because the hospital is cutting back due to the new laws pertaining to Obamacare, there is also a shortage of staff.
Click to expand...

What new ACA rules are causing these cutbacks? AFAIK, ACA is funding new staffers

She explained to me many of these people are on Medicare and Medicaid. Many doctors in private practice are choosing not to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients due to the cuts in Obamacare in payment as they already receive a fraction of what doctors/hospitals are reimbursed from private insurance.
Click to expand...

The # of doctors who accept Medicare and Medicaid have been increasing. Sounds like she doesn't know what she's talking about

And add to that the additional costs to the physicians to cover all the bureaucratic red tape government insurance comes with and it is like operating in the red with these patients.
Click to expand...

There is no "govt insurance" other than Medicare and Medicaid, and there is no additional "bureaucratic red tape". However, there are additional payments being made to hospitals under ACA, which is the exact opposite of what your sister (if she exists) is claiming


Those doctors that do accept Medicare and Medicaid are overbooked and waiting periods to get in to see a doctor can be several weeks. This is sending more folks to the ER for treatment. We have got doctors around my area who have opted out of Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare and strictly operate on cash, check and credit cards and ironically their fees are about 50% less than those who do accept the above mentioned. They have cut the number of patients they see and in doing so are able to see a patient without delay. I am not surprised to see this happening in my area because the program that Obamacare was designed around is Romneycare implemented in 2006 in Massachusetts and for the past few years they have been experiencing doctor shortages for the very same reasons. In Mass. most people have insurance but many do not have doctors.
Click to expand...

Yes, doctors are cutting their fees *and* seeing less patients. That's why sending on health care is going up! :roll:

And the # of doctors who are practicing is at a record high, and ACA funds thousands of additional residencies for both doctors and nurses as well as providing $15billion for new community health centers
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
What new ACA rules are causing these cutbacks? AFAIK, ACA is funding new staffers



The # of doctors who accept Medicare and Medicaid have been increasing. Sounds like she doesn't know what she's talking about



There is no "govt insurance" other than Medicare and Medicaid, and there is no additional "bureaucratic red tape". However, there are additional payments being made to hospitals under ACA, which is the exact opposite of what your sister (if she exists) is claiming




Yes, doctors are cutting their fees *and* seeing less patients. :roll:

And the # of doctors who are practicing is at a record high, and ACA funds thousands of additional residencies for both doctors and nurses as well as providing $15billion for new community health centers
Click to expand...

In support:

Report: More Doctors Accepting Medicare Patients
The number of physicians accepting new Medicare patients rose by one-third between 2007 and 2011 and is now higher than the number of physicians accepting new private insurance patients, according to a Department of Health and Human Services report obtained by USA TODAY. In 2007, about 925,000 doctors billed Medicare for their services. In 2011, that number had risen to 1.25 million, according to the report by the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (Kennedy, 8/22).

Source:
Report: More doctors accepting Medicare patients
 
sangha said:
What new ACA rules are causing these cutbacks? AFAIK, ACA is funding new staffers



The # of doctors who accept Medicare and Medicaid have been increasing. Sounds like she doesn't know what she's talking about



There is no "govt insurance" other than Medicare and Medicaid, and there is no additional "bureaucratic red tape". However, there are additional payments being made to hospitals under ACA, which is the exact opposite of what your sister (if she exists) is claiming




Yes, doctors are cutting their fees *and* seeing less patients. That's why sending on health care is going up! :roll:

And the # of doctors who are practicing is at a record high, and ACA funds thousands of additional residencies for both doctors and nurses as well as providing $15billion for new community health centers
Click to expand...

First off, the person is my daughter not my sister.
Second here in Ohio we have the Cleveland Clinic, I am sure you are familiar with them. Here is a link breaking down why Cleveland Clinic had to cut back due to Obamacare.

Is Obamacare really to blame for cuts at the Cleveland Clinic and other hospitals? | cleveland.com

The number of doctors limiting or no longer accepting Medicare patients has been increasing over the past couple of years.

If You're on Medicare, the Doctor May Not See You Anymore | National Review Online

The shortage of doctors is real

Obamacare, doctor shortage could crash health care system - CNN.com
Editorial: Western Massachusetts doctor shortage in critical condition | masslive.com

And I fear it will get even worse with the number of people currently enrolling on Medicaid.

What good is insurance if you can't get in to see a doctor?

Edit- And you are dead wrong to believe there are no other added costs to doctors and hospitals over the bureaucratic red tape involved with government insurance. They have to hire a staff of people just to deal with all the crap. Not to mention increase the size of the office space for them to work. Do you think that all comes free too? Like Rock Candy Mountain?
 
Last edited:
vesper said:
First off, the person is my daughter not my sister.
Second here in Ohio we have the Cleveland Clinic, I am sure you are familiar with them. Here is a link breaking down why Cleveland Clinic had to cut back due to Obamacare.

Is Obamacare really to blame for cuts at the Cleveland Clinic and other hospitals? | cleveland.com

The number of doctors limiting or no longer accepting Medicare patients has been increasing over the past couple of years.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? The article you linked to explained why it's *not* ACA that is causing the cutbacks. It's the sequester and the state's refusal to expand Medicaid (thanks to republicans) that is causing the cutbacks!


If You're on Medicare, the Doctor May Not See You Anymore | National Review Online

The shortage of doctors is real
Click to expand...

Again, not caused by ACA. There are more doctors accepting medicare and medicaid, and more doctors overall, and ACA is expanding those #'s, not cutting them back



Edit- And you are dead wrong to believe there are no other added costs to doctors and hospitals over the bureaucratic red tape involved with government insurance. They have to hire a staff of people just to deal with all the crap. Not to mention increase the size of the office space for them to work. Do you think that all comes free too? Like Rock Candy Mountain?
Click to expand...

Hospitals have to add staff to deal with insurance?

You mean, dealing with insurance is something they didn't have to do before ACA? :lamo

You're hilarious!!
 
sangha said:
Are you kidding me? The article you linked to explained why it's *not* ACA that is causing the cutbacks. It's the sequester and the state's refusal to expand Medicaid (thanks to republicans) that is causing the cutbacks!
Click to expand...
Go read them again. There are a number of reasons why the hospitals are feeling the pinch directly related to Obamacare. The sequester was just ONE of the cuts the hospitals have had to endure. Obamacare cuts the amount of payment the hospital and the doctor will receive for Medicare patients.

Again, not caused by ACA. There are more doctors accepting medicare and medicaid, and more doctors overall, and ACA is expanding those #'s, not cutting them back
Click to expand...
And the moon is made of cheese. But those who are accepting Medicaid/Medicare patients will continue to dwindle and folks will be waiting a long time to get into see their doctor.

Hospitals have to add staff to deal with insurance?

You mean, dealing with insurance is something they didn't have to do before ACA? :lamo
Click to expand...

You obviously have no clue how burdensome it is dealing with the Federal government when it comes to health care. Their code of rules of what they cover/when they cover something is so convoluted that it takes a trained staff just to deal with government claims.

You're hilarious!!
Click to expand...

You think so? Well I don't think the idea of having to wait to get in to see my doctor is very hilarious. I recently had to make an appointment. In the past the longest I have ever had to wait was, 8-10 days. The next available appointment was 5 weeks away. Thank God it wasn't life threatening.

I found a piece written this month at Forbes that describes to a tee how things are shaping up in my area. Read it and weep for it may be coming to your town soon. One could only hope so, .... . After all it is all who voted for this boondoggle that raised my premiums and deductibles to ridiculous levels and now is making it harder to see a doctor..... may it happen to all of you.

The Fourth Obamacare Shock Wave Is About To Reach Us - Forbes
 
Last edited:
It's only human decency to help someone who is hurt. That's the first priority.

Because it's also the law, many of the innercity hospitals throughout California are shutting down their emergency facilities because so few people there pay.

It's not widely published that many are also opening up 24 hr. emergency clinics in the more affluent areas of town while closing down the innercity emergency rooms. Somebody has to pay or everybody loses out.

There's just no profit in having so many nonpaying families walk in with five or six kids, all with the sniffles, and all demanding free treatment, while the guy with a broken arm sits there for hours.
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
Sure, they can try.

But people don't get thousands and thousands of dollars of emergency treatment by fooling the ER staff. ER's across the nation knowingly and willingly treat people for non-emergency conditions.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Because they know that, for millions, it's the only medical treatment some of them will get. But with the ACA, they know that won't be the case anymore.
 
jamesrage said:
Theft is taking someone's property without consent or permission of that person with the intent of depriving that person of that property.The patient who received emergency medical care did not take the hospital's property without consent or permission of the hospital.It anyone took the medical care without consent or permission of the hospital it was the government.
Click to expand...

To many folks, mostly on the left, there is no distinction between voluntary and mandatory charity; that is the moral, yet not constitutional, basis for federal income redistribution. It seems that no private person or medical care provider has the "right" to refuse to behave as directed by the gov't.

Why not make SNAP work this way too? Instead of having EBT cards give taxpayer cash to the food providers, simply make it a mandate for a food provider to dispense X amount of food to each "poor" EBT card holder? That way, just like for ER care, the provider must pass along the hidden cost of mandated charity to all others - saving the gov't the trouble of taxation, and the people the need to pay federal middlemen in the process.
 
vesper said:
Go read them again. There are a number of reasons why the hospitals are feeling the pinch directly related to Obamacare. The sequester was just ONE of the cuts the hospitals have had to endure. Obamacare cuts the amount of payment the hospital and the doctor will receive for Medicare patients.
Click to expand...

No, the article clearly states that the reason for the cuts in payments are due to the sequester, cost cutting measure Congress has taken (other than ACA), and your state's decision to not expand Medicaid.



And the moon is made of cheese. But those who are accepting Medicaid/Medicare patients will continue to dwindle and folks will be waiting a long time to get into see their doctor.
Click to expand...

Continue to dwindle? The # is growing!

Your argument is completely detached from reality



You obviously have no clue how burdensome it is dealing with the Federal government when it comes to health care. Their code of rules of what they cover/when they cover something is so convoluted that it takes a trained staff just to deal with government claims.
Click to expand...

That's the insurance companies who make it convoluted, not the govt.



You think so? Well I don't think the idea of having to wait to get in to see my doctor is very hilarious. I recently had to make an appointment. In the past the longest I have ever had to wait was, 8-10 days. The next available appointment was 5 weeks away. Thank God it wasn't life threatening.
Click to expand...

Five years before ACA was even being debated, it took me almost 10 weeks to get an appt for my mom who did have a life threatening condition.
 
sangha said:
No, the article clearly states that the reason for the cuts in payments are due to the sequester, cost cutting measure Congress has taken (other than ACA), and your state's decision to not expand Medicaid.





Continue to dwindle? The # is growing!

Your argument is completely detached from reality





That's the insurance companies who make it convoluted, not the govt.





Five years before ACA was even being debated, it took me almost 10 weeks to get an appt for my mom who did have a life threatening condition.
Click to expand...

The number of doctors accepting Medicaid and Medicare patients is not growing. The only thing that is growing are the number of people enrolling into the programs. The only people who have claimed more doctors are accepting these patients are the idiots at HHS a few months back and these same people haven't got one dang thing right since this whole Obamacare implementation began.

More Doctors Rejecting New Medicaid Patients As Program Expands; Posing Threat Of A Shortage

From your comments you still do not grasp the additional cost to administrations in dealing with government insurance nor do you seem to grasp the less than adequate payment the government approves for hospital/doctors services with another looming cut of 25% in payment for services rendered that hospitals and doctors will be facing in 2014. As the shortage of doctors continues, I wonder how long it will be before some Progressive yahoo in Congress will propose legislation forcing doctors to take Medicare and Medicaid patients which will amount to forcing them to work for a bag of beans and bag of rice.
 
Last edited:
vesper said:
The number of doctors accepting Medicaid and Medicare patients is not growing. The only thing that is growing are the number of people enrolling into the programs. The only people who have claimed more doctors are accepting these patients are the idiots at HHS a few months back and these same people haven't got one dang thing right since this whole Obamacare implementation began.
Click to expand...

You have already been proven wrong about this. With the large increase in the # of doctors, there has been an increase in the # of doctors who don't accept Medicare and an increase in the # of doctors who do accept Medicare.

This is basic arithmetic.

From your comments you still do not grasp the additional cost to administrations in dealing with government insurance nor do you seem to grasp the less than adequate payment the government approves for hospital/doctors services with another looming cut of 25% in payment for services rendered that hospitals and doctors will be facing in 2014. As the shortage of doctors continues, I wonder how long it will be before some Progressive yahoo in Congress will propose legislation forcing doctors to take Medicare and Medicaid patients which will amount to forcing them to work for a bag of beans and bag of rice.
Click to expand...

From your comments it's obvious that you can't identify one additional cost. All you can do is repeat your dishonest claim that they exist.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
To many folks, mostly on the left, there is no distinction between voluntary and mandatory charity; that is the moral, yet not constitutional, basis for federal income redistribution. It seems that no private person or medical care provider has the "right" to refuse to behave as directed by the gov't.
Click to expand...

Its too easy to spend money when it is not yours. This is why the government spends money like a drunken trophy wife whore or why the left demands all sorts of benefits.

Why not make SNAP work this way too? Instead of having EBT cards give taxpayer cash to the food providers, simply make it a mandate for a food provider to dispense X amount of food to each "poor" EBT card holder? That way, just like for ER care, the provider must pass along the hidden cost of mandated charity to all others - saving the gov't the trouble of taxation, and the people the need to pay federal middlemen in the process.
Click to expand...

I would prefer that welfare recipients use wic vouchers. WIC vouchers tell you what exactly you can buy and when you can buy it.This would save tax payers money and eliminate what I call food stamp hell day at the grocery stores.
 
sangha said:
Right, we were talking about non-emergency care. ER's have no obligation to provide non-emergency care, so how can they avoid lawsuits by providing non-emergency care?
Click to expand...

Because a jury of those uneducated in medical treatment will hear a sob story and decide it should have been treated if you refuse. So many ERs set the triage bar for emergencies low.
 
clownboy said:
Because a jury of those uneducated in medical treatment will hear a sob story and decide it should have been treated if you refuse. So many ERs set the triage bar for emergencies low.
Click to expand...

Cool story, bro!
 
sangha said:
You decide you need a little fresh air, so you go outside for a little stroll. Because you don't expect to be out long, or do anything of note, you leave without your wallet or purse and have no identification on you.

While you're walking, a car goes out of control, jumps the curb and mows you down. You're knocked unconscious and you have several life-threatening injuries. An ambulance quickly arrives, scoops you up and brings you to the hospital where they have no idea who you are or if you are able to pay for the care you need.

Should the hospital treat you or should they wait until they can make certain you can your bill for the care they're going to give you?

Just a refresher for some of the more important points:

1) You're at the hospital
2) You're unconscious
3) The hospital has no idea who you are of it you can pay
4) You're dying
Click to expand...

In this scenario the hospital should treat you right away. Since you were hit by a car that was out of control, it wouldn't be you paying for your treatment anyway. At least not in a perfect world. The owner of the car's insurance company should be paying the bills. This leaves the hospital two payment options. Either the car owners insurance or you if you recover. Those are at least better odds than other scenario's.
 
Can't they just call the NSA with the ID# on the chip in your brain?
 
sangha said:
Cool story, bro!
Click to expand...

Nice sarcasm, now try actually working in an ER sometime and come back and apologise to me and vesper on this because you have it all wrong.
 
clownboy said:
Nice sarcasm, now try actually working in an ER sometime and come back and apologise to me and vesper on this because you have it all wrong.
Click to expand...

If someone on the internet says so, then it must be true! :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom