Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13986282
I have a question. It seems to me that a large percentage of health care costs occur from people without healthcare. Often they have emergency procedures done and do not have the capital to repay the hospital. I personally know of 2 people with +$40,000 medical bills of which the majority of the monetary demands were dropped because both were broke minimum wage earning young adults.

Currently, there is strong opposition to the Obamacare act that forces everyone to purchase healthcare. Well if this is unconstitutional, why isnt the (EMTALA) as well? This act forces the hospitals to give care to non paying people. These costs are then transferred to the costs of other patients, which in effect subsidizing the poor. Would it really be political suicide to repeal this law? Has a health provider challenged this law in court yet?
#13986325
It has nothing to do with publicly offered services and more with the stipulation that if a hospital wants to accept Medicare/aid patients it also needs to treat any person off the street, regardless of their ability to pay. So should farmers who accept subsidies be forced to feed hungry people who come to their farm? Maybe the next farm aid bill should stipulate that.

It is obvious that government through EMTALA (enacted by Reagan) has its hands "knee deep" in our health care system. This is the one thing O-care opponents are outraged about. Well they should be consistently outraged against the EMTALA as well, but this legislation was enacted by a republican.
#13986370
I don't think you understand. COBRA was a far wider bipartisan compromise, and I really hate when people blame Presidents for legislation. When the President signs a bill into law, he's just consenting to enforce it. It doesn't mean he authored or sponsored it. He might not even like it. It's just a recognition of due process and a willingness to participate in its follow-through.

Anyway, it goes beyond subsidies, but I agree that subsidies are a secondary argument, and yes, if you receive government aid, you should have to serve the general public (subject to secondary stipulations such as separation between Church and State - Obama's a lunatic for demanding Catholic hospitals offer public contraception).

The primary argument is that you're a hospital. If you advertise yourself as a hospital, then you behave as a hospital. That doesn't mean you get to pick and choose among emergency service provision. People, by definition of needing emergency services, don't have the time, energy, and attention to figure things out.
#13986643
and I really hate when people blame Presidents for legislation.


Who else signs it in place?

if you receive government aid, you should have to serve the general public


I wouldn't consider Medicare and Medicaid a government aid. It is a payment for services received.

Obama's a lunatic for demanding Catholic hospitals offer public contraception).


Why are you blaming the president for this??? :D You just stated that the house and senate are to blame for passed legislation. Double standard much? By the way, as I see it from Germany (and I may be wrong, because their really is a liberal media here) the individual pays part, the employer pays part and the government pays part of the health insurance under o-care. Can't one take the contraceptive funds just from the funds originating from the individuals? Problem solved?

People, by definition of needing emergency services, don't have the time, energy, and attention to figure things out.


So if, by your definition, health care is different than other services provided, why don't we create a system where the poor's health care is subsidized by everyone in a transparent manner and not like it currently is, where hospitals are burdened with transferring the costs from the insured to the uninsured. Additionally, this would probably save money in the long run. With the poor being able to pay for preventive care, which I heard brings long term health care costs down.
#13986854
GermanOgre wrote:It has nothing to do with publicly offered services and more with the stipulation that if a hospital wants to accept Medicare/aid patients it also needs to treat any person off the street, regardless of their ability to pay. So should farmers who accept subsidies be forced to feed hungry people who come to their farm?

You can't really compare those two things. They are completely different.

Though your premise that hospitals bleed money (no pun intended) and that emergency health care is a regressive economic burden is accurate. Health insurance in general is essentially gambling that the payments, deductibles, and premiums will cost more than the insurer will pay out. Anyone who has a complicated/traumatic health history knows that they will try to fight for every penny that they actually cover.

A slightly more fair but still flawed comparison would be the forced ownership of automobile insurance.

but this legislation was enacted by a republican.

So was the EPA and relations with China, doesn't seem to bother them.
#13989253
GermanOgre wrote:I wouldn't consider Medicare and Medicaid a government aid.

Really? I would think Medicare and Medicaid could serve as definitions for government aid. Any program where the government assumes all or part of the responsibility for providing something for you (a good or a service) is government aid.
#13989325
We were talking about Medicare and how it relates to hospitals. It isn't an aid for the hospital. It is an aid from the government for the individual whose medical costs are being paid. For the hospital the money pays for services tendered.
I wouldn't consider money a high way construction firm receives from the government as a government aid.
#13989569
GermanOgre wrote:I wouldn't consider money a high way construction firm receives from the government as a government aid.

I am going to assume you are making this statement because the highway construction firm is providing a service directly to the government. Government orders highway, firm builds highway, government pays firm. This is not government aid.

Medicare/medicaid is a payment by the government to the hospital for services rendered to someone else. The government is paying for that persons healthcare, not the governments healthcare...which makes it government aid to that person.
#14112391
The thing is that that to go far enough ant repeal EMTALA would go "too far" for even most Republicans. It would be viewed as simply too cruel by most of the population but what most of the population does not realize is that it is impractical to keep EMTALA while at the same time not insuring everybody. I give libertarians kudos for going the "whole way" but the majority of Republicans who justify opposing universal insurance on the grounds that "the uninsured can still get care" are hypocrites of the first degree. They are costing every single tax payer money, they are costing everybody who is insured higher premiums, and literally endangering anybody who comes into an emergency room with artificially long lines. In essence this is one of those issues where we just can't have our cake and eat it too. We need to go the full way, insure everybody, or admit the ugly truth and make it legal to allow the poor to die in the streets. And if you libertarians think that many hospitals won't let this happen, you either have a naively almost Panglossian view of human nature or are a jackass and I hope you lose your health insurance and it happens to you.

The big trouble is that it is ALL propaganda. The […]

Did Hung Wu have a psychotic episode? @Hong Wu […]

US Elections, 2016 Ed.

And the remarks about the House over riding the w[…]

Kurdish State

The Kurds will never get their own state. They ar[…]