• 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
The act in question raises the cost of care and assumes that you have a right to the labor of others. Obviously the law is unfit and should be repealed.
 
sangha said:
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...

Not only should they treat you, they will definitely treat you. The problem with ER's is that so many people use them for non-emergent problems, and they don't pay.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Oh my, the lengths that one goes through to invent a trickier than usual case. I guess that is easier than dealing with the issue of payment for 99.9% of the typical cases. ;)
Click to expand...

True I wasnt at all talking about the people that you are talking about. Thats the beauty of having my own mind, I can specifically talk about what I want to assert.

My point was that a one size fits all mentality can never address the complicated issue of emergency healthcare.

Before you get carried away with further talk, let me point out some things.

Using ER's as clinics to treat non-emergency cases is a total waste of everyone's time and money. No one should get a free ride. Resources do not just appear out of thin air. But that doesnt mean that we need to be a cold cruel society that lets people die because they lack the funds to save their life. Nobody is going to be sitting around dying thinking "oh well I cant afford the care I need to survive and I wouldnt want to burden anyone else. So goodbye everyone!" AT least give the poor bastard a low interest loan for him to pay off when he gets better. But even that wont do any good until we get a hold of the outrageous prices in every aspect of medical care. When I had my entire cancerous thyroid removed and I looked at my bill I couldnt believe that the oxygen hose cost me 180 odd bucks. I bought plenty of the same hose for my Mom and it was a far cry from that price.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
True I wasnt at all talking about the people that you are talking about. Thats the beauty of having my own mind, I can specifically talk about what I want to assert.

My point was that a one size fits all mentality can never address the complicated issue of emergency healthcare.

Before you get carried away with further talk, let me point out some things.

Using ER's as clinics to treat non-emergency cases is a total waste of everyone's time and money. No one should get a free ride. Resources do not just appear out of thin air. But that doesnt mean that we need to be a cold cruel society that lets people die because they lack the funds to save their life. Nobody is going to be sitting around dying thinking "oh well I cant afford the care I need to survive and I wouldnt want to burden anyone else. So goodbye everyone!" AT least give the poor bastard a low interest loan for him to pay off when he gets better. But even that wont do any good until we get a hold of the outrageous prices in every aspect of medical care. When I had my entire cancerous thyroid removed and I looked at my bill I couldnt believe that the oxygen hose cost me 180 odd bucks. I bought plenty of the same hose for my Mom and it was a far cry from that price.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

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.
 
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.
 
sangha said:
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
Click to expand...

Who died and made you thread god? Try complaining to the mods its not your job dude.
 
Northern Light said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's already been that way since 1986. The question is a little late to the game.
 
clownboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree and pretty much said so much in my last post.
 
sangha said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
sangha said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
lizzie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
lizzie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
clownboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

True. Unless they declare bankruptcy, their debt survives. However, while the hospital waits to collect it, they bump up the price for everyone else to make up for the uncollected debt.

However, that doesn't add to the total cost of health care. Whether the cost is paid by the recipient, or passed on to others, it's still the same cost. No matter who pays the bill, that care is expensive. The issue is that isn't why the care is so expensive in the first place.
 
clownboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

It doesn't disappear, but the hospital absorbs the cost and takes a loss.
 
sangha said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't know what the actual numbers are, but will see if I can find any data that seems reliable. As for other nations, it wouldn't surprise me if they don't go to the extremes to keep people alive, that we do here. We spend a lot of money on long-term chronic care, and very aggressive ICU treatment.
 
From my view the high cost of hospital care in the US, the two largest culprits are lawsuits and kickass equipment that doesn't run on hamster wheel.
 
Serenity said:
Life threatening injuries? Absolutely they should be treated.

No ifs, buts or maybes.
Click to expand...

This. Medicine is more than about business. Taking a loss in your wallet, but saving a life is a win; it's always a win.
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
True. Unless they declare bankruptcy, their debt survives. However, while the hospital waits to collect it, they bump up the price for everyone else to make up for the uncollected debt.

However, that doesn't add to the total cost of health care. Whether the cost is paid by the recipient, or passed on to others, it's still the same cost. No matter who pays the bill, that care is expensive. The issue is that isn't why the care is so expensive in the first place.
Click to expand...

That's why I find it amusing that so many people are complaining about Obamacare. They are having to pay now, because the unpaid bills by people without insurance get passed on to them in the form of higher treatments, or $8 Tylenols. I thought the whole purpose of ACA was to help keep people out of the ER by getting them regular medical treatment, like those of us who are insured are already getting.
 
lizzie said:
I don't know what the actual numbers are, but will see if I can find any data that seems reliable. As for other nations, it wouldn't surprise me if they don't go to the extremes to keep people alive, that we do here. We spend a lot of money on long-term chronic care, and very aggressive ICU treatment.
Click to expand...

I agree, but that's a bit of a different problem than the EMTALA requirement.
 
Superfly said:
That's why I find it amusing that so many people are complaining about Obamacare. They are having to pay now, because the unpaid bills by people without insurance get passed on to them in the form of higher treatments, or $8 Tylenols. I thought the whole purpose of ACA was to help keep people out of the ER by getting them regular medical treatment, like those of us who are insured are already getting.
Click to expand...

Correct

One way or another, we have always been paying to care for people who couldn't afford to pay for it themselves.

And yes, the problem with the expense of ER's is not the expense of providing treatment for emergencies. It's the cost of providing non-emergency care for people who go to ER's because they can't get an appt to see a regular doctor because they have no insurance.
 
sangha said:
Correct

One way or another, we have always been paying to care for people who couldn't afford to pay for it themselves.

And yes, the problem with the expense of ER's is not the expense of providing treatment for emergencies. It's the cost of providing non-emergency care for people who go to ER's because they can't get an appt to see a regular doctor because they have no insurance.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom