Hillary Care

[TexasTiger 13,028]

I heard that Hillary planned to shoot unauthorized Gray Ladies who are caught handing out band aids at school.

[aumd03 2]

So are you really a doctor, or do you just play one on the internet?

You'd get in more trouble for not picking up a primary tumor earlier. Any patient with a large enough tumor to suspect mets is going to get a CT and probably PET for primary staging before any surgery is attempted, so missing a met is less of an issue.

I agree, there is a subpopulation is going to bankrupt our health care system. We spend about 90% of our funds on about 5% of the population. For example, I saw a patient that had 25 CT's for abdominal pain after visits to the ER over a two year period. No one wants to miss the appendicitis, although this patient routinely abuses the system. The hospital eats those costs and passes it along to other patients. You can't tell me that after the 3rd or 4th CT, the sole motivation is protection from a potential lawsuit.

I didn't mean to imply that radiologists have no role other than a safety net. But much of imaging is a "just in case" type of deal. I think its difficult to understand being scared of being sued until you are in that situation. And don't realize how much that thought enters your mind during decision making. Imaging is a quite lucrative business. I'm surprised you are supportive of govt healthcare. I have discussed cases more than once with the hospital or nursing home lawyer in my short time trying to avoid a lawsuit. It does impact care and costs. I don't think lawyers or evil or bad, its just that punitive damage cases have gotten out of hand. Lawyers protect us from things that are unsafe and from abuses. But sometimes bad and unexpected things happen. They aren't always someone's fault. It doesn't entitle you to tens of millions of dollars. And in our society, in places where people have a victimistic point of view, jury trials are don't always see the facts of the case as they really are.

I just play one. My real name is George O'Malley.

Sorry that Burke is so mean to you.

I could take him and his gimpy hand anyday.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

So are you really a doctor, or do you just play one on the internet?

You'd get in more trouble for not picking up a primary tumor earlier. Any patient with a large enough tumor to suspect mets is going to get a CT and probably PET for primary staging before any surgery is attempted, so missing a met is less of an issue.

I agree, there is a subpopulation is going to bankrupt our health care system. We spend about 90% of our funds on about 5% of the population. For example, I saw a patient that had 25 CT's for abdominal pain after visits to the ER over a two year period. No one wants to miss the appendicitis, although this patient routinely abuses the system. The hospital eats those costs and passes it along to other patients. You can't tell me that after the 3rd or 4th CT, the sole motivation is protection from a potential lawsuit.

I didn't mean to imply that radiologists have no role other than a safety net. But much of imaging is a "just in case" type of deal. I think its difficult to understand being scared of being sued until you are in that situation. And don't realize how much that thought enters your mind during decision making. Imaging is a quite lucrative business. I'm surprised you are supportive of govt healthcare. I have discussed cases more than once with the hospital or nursing home lawyer in my short time trying to avoid a lawsuit. It does impact care and costs. I don't think lawyers or evil or bad, its just that punitive damage cases have gotten out of hand. Lawyers protect us from things that are unsafe and from abuses. But sometimes bad and unexpected things happen. They aren't always someone's fault. It doesn't entitle you to tens of millions of dollars. And in our society, in places where people have a victimistic point of view, jury trials are don't always see the facts of the case as they really are.

I just play one. My real name is George O'Malley.

Sorry that Burke is so mean to you.

I could take him and his gimpy hand anyday.

Ooooh, tough guy!!!

[DKW 86 7,441]

Is that number sufficient for the entire state? Any idea how many of those practice entirely in Ala? I know three Dr's who have practices in Ala & another state.

I have no idea if that number is sufficient or not and my assumption would be that a few/some/a lot/most/all of them practice in other states as well, but, your questions have no bearing on my response to David's implication that Medicare providers were few and far between. MC has more General Practitioners in Al than BCBS. Medicare has 1833 Internal Medicine physicians in Al. MC has 363 Orthopaedic providers to choose from. It has 382 Cardiac physicians, 449 Radiologists, 625 Surgeons, and the list goes on. The point is, the patient's choices aren't as limited as David would have us believe.

I said those accepting new patients were few and far between. I also know three of the hottest Drs here in Decatur and not one takes Medicare.

As far as this whole "not covered" crapola. Anyone, rich or poor, regardless of ability to pay gets medical care at any emergency room in the country. Why do people still CLAIM that they have "no coverage" when in fact they do?

[TexasTiger 13,028]

[

As far as this whole "not covered" crapola. Anyone, rich or poor, regardless of ability to pay gets medical care at any emergency room in the country. Why do people still CLAIM that they have "no coverage" when in fact they do?

Think about this statement after a night's sleep.

[AURaptor 1,126]

[

As far as this whole "not covered" crapola. Anyone, rich or poor, regardless of ability to pay gets medical care at any emergency room in the country. Why do people still CLAIM that they have "no coverage" when in fact they do?

Think about this statement after a night's sleep.

That's not a response, TT. If you want to point out some specific flaw in the argument, then be brave enough to do so. It won't hurt, I promise. But simply giving a snide remark isn't imparting any great wisdom on anyone. Despite what you may think.

[Tiger Al 0]

Is that number sufficient for the entire state? Any idea how many of those practice entirely in Ala? I know three Dr's who have practices in Ala & another state.

I have no idea if that number is sufficient or not and my assumption would be that a few/some/a lot/most/all of them practice in other states as well, but, your questions have no bearing on my response to David's implication that Medicare providers were few and far between. MC has more General Practitioners in Al than BCBS. Medicare has 1833 Internal Medicine physicians in Al. MC has 363 Orthopaedic providers to choose from. It has 382 Cardiac physicians, 449 Radiologists, 625 Surgeons, and the list goes on. The point is, the patient's choices aren't as limited as David would have us believe.

I said those accepting new patients were few and far between. I also know three of the hottest Drs here in Decatur and not one takes Medicare.

Wrong.

Despite an earlier Medicare payment rate reduction, the proportion of U.S. physicians accepting Medicare patients stabilized in 2004-05, with nearly three-quarters saying their practices were open to all new Medicare patients, according to a new study by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC). In 2004-05, 72.9 percent of physicians reported accepting all new Medicare patients, statistically unchanged from 71.1 percent in 2000-01. Only 3.4 percent of physicians reported that their practices were completely closed to new Medicare patients in 2004-05, also statistically unchanged from 2000-01. These trends indicate the decline in Medicare physician access observed between 1996-97 and 2000-01 leveled off in 2004-05. In fact, Medicare beneficiaries’ access to primary care physicians increased between 2000-01 and 2004-05, reversing an earlier decline. Among privately insured patients, trends in physician access are similar to those for Medicare patients, suggesting that overall health system dynamics have played a larger role in physician decisions about accepting Medicare patients than have Medicare payment policies.

Hmmmmm...I wonder if physicians ever close their practices to all patients regardless of insurance coverage?

Table 1

Physician Acceptance of New Medicare and Privately Insured Patients

1996-97 2000-01 2004-05

Medicare Patients

Accepting No New Patients 3.1% 3.8%# 3.4%

Accepting Some 9.5 10.2 9.7

Accepting Most 12.8 15.0# 14.0

Accepting All 74.6 71.1# 72.9

Privately Insured Patients

Accepting No New Patients 3.6 4.9# 4.3

Accepting Some 9.7 10.3 9.2

Accepting Most 15.9 16.6 14.8

Accepting All 70.8 68.2# 71.8*

LINK

As usual, your assumptions are not supported by facts. The fact is, physicians accept and reject new patients at about the same rate, regardless of insurance carrier.

As far as this whole "not covered" crapola. Anyone, rich or poor, regardless of ability to pay gets medical care at any emergency room in the country. Why do people still CLAIM that they have "no coverage" when in fact they do?

Again, if an uninsured person rolls into the ER with a gunshot wound, yes, he will be given treatment, stabilized and sent to a hospital that cares for indigents. Let him go in with flu symptoms and he's lucky to get 800mg of Motrin. Read the signs posted in the waiting room.

Better yet, prove me wrong. Go, today, to your ER and complain of low back pain for three days. Tell them you are uninsured, unemployed and are unable to pay your hospital bill. Then tell me how much "medical treatment" you got. If you're nice, they'll give you said 800mg of Motrin and directions to the free clinic.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Better yet, prove me wrong. Go, today, to your ER and complain of low back pain for three days. Tell them you are uninsured, unemployed and are unable to pay your hospital bill. Then tell me how much "medical treatment" you got. If you're nice, they'll give you said 800mg of Motrin and directions to the free clinic.

You're free to go to a chiropractor, instead of a ER at the expensive and busy hospital. You'll be charged for the initial x-rays, but the per visit charge after that is much smaller than a doctors. Oh, and it's more likely to give you real relief too.

[DKW 86 7,441]

http://www.google.com/search?q=not+accepti...amp;startPage=1

Results 1 - 10 of about 994,000 for not accepting new medicare patients. (0.11 seconds)

[DKW 86 7,441]

Al, Tex, you are all right. The country is completely filled with morons. NO ONE on either side of the aisle knows what they are talking about. The Dems that provided their own NHI Bills were all fools. The Republicans that tried, were all fools as well. Only you two and Hillary have the brains to lead the rest of the nation that totally rejected this crap.

Veterans that have had horrible health care at VA hospitals are all liars. All govt programs are perfectly run, we are all fools.

[Tiger Al 0]

Better yet, prove me wrong. Go, today, to your ER and complain of low back pain for three days. Tell them you are uninsured, unemployed and are unable to pay your hospital bill. Then tell me how much "medical treatment" you got. If you're nice, they'll give you said 800mg of Motrin and directions to the free clinic.

You're free to go to a chiropractor, instead of a ER at the expensive and busy hospital. You'll be charged for the initial x-rays, but the per visit charge after that is much smaller than a doctors. Oh, and it's more likely to give you real relief too.

Is the chiropractor going to start manipulating your spine based on an x-ray alone? What if the pain is from a minimally bulging disc manageable with steroidal anti-inflammatories, but, after a round of chiropractic treatments, the bulge turns into a full-blown herniation requiring surgery? What if the pain is from a torn muscle? What if the pain is from a bone metastasis that doesn't show up on an x-ray? What if the pain is from a kidney stone?

Chiropractors aren't going to start wrenching your spine around willy-nilly. They get sued for malpractice, too, and have to practice due dilligence the same as everyone else. But, assuming he'd only take an x-ray and start twisting, remember, you first have to tell him you're uninsured, unemployed and unable to pay. Will he still see you? Your chances are better at the ER.

[Tiger Al 0]

Al, Tex, you are all right. The country is completely filled with morons. NO ONE on either side of the aisle knows what they are talking about. The Dems that provided their own NHI Bills were all fools. The Republicans that tried, were all fools as well. Only you two and Hillary have the brains to lead the rest of the nation that totally rejected this crap.

Veterans that have had horrible health care at VA hospitals are all liars. All govt programs are perfectly run, we are all fools.

David's ranting tirades have begun! His arguments have no substance so he throws a temper tantrum.

I'm still waiting on this last gem of yours:

Back to Hillary care, as proposed back in 1993, it had the first seven sections were on politically appointed regional groups that woud assign you to a doctor. Then the rest of the first seven sections were insuring you did as told and included jail time for those that tried to go outside the system. In 1995, the Republican Congress tried again to get NHC by stripping off the first seven sections of Hillary care and running it again. It failed due to tall the left over negative publicity on the first try.

Do you actually have a link or should I just go to www.takeyourwordforit.com?

[AURaptor 1,126]

Better yet, prove me wrong. Go, today, to your ER and complain of low back pain for three days. Tell them you are uninsured, unemployed and are unable to pay your hospital bill. Then tell me how much "medical treatment" you got. If you're nice, they'll give you said 800mg of Motrin and directions to the free clinic.

You're free to go to a chiropractor, instead of a ER at the expensive and busy hospital. You'll be charged for the initial x-rays, but the per visit charge after that is much smaller than a doctors. Oh, and it's more likely to give you real relief too.

Is the chiropractor going to start manipulating your spine based on an x-ray alone?

An x-ray, some q & a from filling out a form, and then a initial examination.

What if the pain is from a minimally bulging disc manageable with steroidal anti-inflammatories, but, after a round of chiropractic treatments, the bulge turns into a full-blown herniation requiring surgery? What if the pain is from a torn muscle? What if the pain is from a bone metastasis that doesn't show up on an x-ray? What if the pain is from a kidney stone?

Sounds like you've never been to a chiropractor.

Chiropractors aren't going to start wrenching your spine around willy-nilly.

No, most aren't. Your point ?

They get sued for malpractice, too, and have to practice due dilligence the same as everyone else. But, assuming he'd only take an x-ray and start twisting, remember, you first have to tell him you're uninsured, unemployed and unable to pay. Will he still see you? Your chances are better at the ER.

If you start off saying you can't pay and are unemployed, you're S.O.L. Sorry, but life isn't a guarentee.

[Tiger Al 0]

Better yet, prove me wrong. Go, today, to your ER and complain of low back pain for three days. Tell them you are uninsured, unemployed and are unable to pay your hospital bill. Then tell me how much "medical treatment" you got. If you're nice, they'll give you said 800mg of Motrin and directions to the free clinic.

You're free to go to a chiropractor, instead of a ER at the expensive and busy hospital. You'll be charged for the initial x-rays, but the per visit charge after that is much smaller than a doctors. Oh, and it's more likely to give you real relief too.

Is the chiropractor going to start manipulating your spine based on an x-ray alone?

An x-ray, some q & a from filling out a form, and then a initial examination.

What if the pain is from a minimally bulging disc manageable with steroidal anti-inflammatories, but, after a round of chiropractic treatments, the bulge turns into a full-blown herniation requiring surgery? What if the pain is from a torn muscle? What if the pain is from a bone metastasis that doesn't show up on an x-ray? What if the pain is from a kidney stone?

Sounds like you've never been to a chiropractor.

Chiropractors aren't going to start wrenching your spine around willy-nilly.

No, most aren't. Your point ?

They get sued for malpractice, too, and have to practice due dilligence the same as everyone else. But, assuming he'd only take an x-ray and start twisting, remember, you first have to tell him you're uninsured, unemployed and unable to pay. Will he still see you? Your chances are better at the ER.

If you start off saying you can't pay and are unemployed, you're S.O.L. Sorry, but life isn't a guarentee.

Raptor, try to keep up. David said, " As far as this whole "not covered" crapola. Anyone, rich or poor, regardless of ability to pay gets medical care at any emergency room in the country. Why do people still CLAIM that they have "no coverage" when in fact they do?"

To which I responded, "Again, if an uninsured person rolls into the ER with a gunshot wound, yes, he will be given treatment, stabilized and sent to a hospital that cares for indigents. Let him go in with flu symptoms and he's lucky to get 800mg of Motrin. Read the signs posted in the waiting room.

Better yet, prove me wrong. Go, today, to your ER and complain of low back pain for three days. Tell them you are uninsured, unemployed and are unable to pay your hospital bill. Then tell me how much "medical treatment" you got. If you're nice, they'll give you said 800mg of Motrin and directions to the free clinic."

You jumped in with this big idea, "You're free to go to a chiropractor, instead of a ER at the expensive and busy hospital. You'll be charged for the initial x-rays, but the per visit charge after that is much smaller than a doctors. Oh, and it's more likely to give you real relief too."

David's faulty premise was that anyone can simply go to any ER and get free health care, regardless of their ability to pay for it. Maybe you missed that part. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the moment.

[AURaptor 1,126]

I didn't miss it, I just ignored it because it wasn't relevent. We can get medical attention, not 'free services ' , and yes, I KNOW there is a difference. But ask yourself this. How the hell did we survive the first 200 yrs w/ out MRIs or even penicillin? As a nation, we have more medical know how and advancement in the local CVS pharmacy than our first Presidents had access to. Point be, we are the keepers of our own health. Not the Gov't.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Raptor, try to keep up. David said, " As far as this whole "not covered" crapola. Anyone, rich or poor, regardless of ability to pay gets medical care at any emergency room in the country. Why do people still CLAIM that they have "no coverage" when in fact they do?"

To which I responded, "Again, if an uninsured person rolls into the ER with a gunshot wound, yes, he will be given treatment, stabilized and sent to a hospital that cares for indigents. Let him go in with flu symptoms and he's lucky to get 800mg of Motrin. Link demanded!

Better yet, prove me wrong. Go, today, to your ER and complain of low back pain for three days. Tell them you are uninsured, unemployed and are unable to pay your hospital bill. Then tell me how much "medical treatment" you got. If you're nice, they'll give you said 800mg of Motrin and directions to the free clinic." Link demanded!

David's faulty premise was that anyone can simply go to any ER and get free health care, regardless of their ability to pay for it. Maybe you missed that part.

[Tiger Al 0]

Raptor, try to keep up. David said, " As far as this whole "not covered" crapola. Anyone, rich or poor, regardless of ability to pay gets medical care at any emergency room in the country. Why do people still CLAIM that they have "no coverage" when in fact they do?"

To which I responded, "Again, if an uninsured person rolls into the ER with a gunshot wound, yes, he will be given treatment, stabilized and sent to a hospital that cares for indigents. Let him go in with flu symptoms and he's lucky to get 800mg of Motrin. Link demanded!

Better yet, prove me wrong. Go, today, to your ER and complain of low back pain for three days. Tell them you are uninsured, unemployed and are unable to pay your hospital bill. Then tell me how much "medical treatment" you got. If you're nice, they'll give you said 800mg of Motrin and directions to the free clinic." Link demanded!

David's faulty premise was that anyone can simply go to any ER and get free health care, regardless of their ability to pay for it. Maybe you missed that part.

Clerks control healthcare access for uninsured patients USA

With no requirement for healthcare providers to care for uninsured patients seeking routine medical attention, frontline staff -- from clerks to insurance verifiers -- are the gatekeepers, deciding who is seen by the physician and who is turned away, according to research conducted at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

LINK

In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented.

LINK

I can back up what I say because it's the truth.

[DKW 86 7,441]

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/us...95--dd000-.html

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, EMTALA) is a United States Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions; as a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.

Employer coverage covers 85% of America today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_i...s#_note-who1997

In the United States, around 85% of citizens have health insurance, either through their employer or purchased individually.[2]

Medicaid and Medicare cover more

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/annex09_en.pdf

Annex Table 9 Overall health system attainment in all Member States, WHO index,

estimates for 1997

Rank Uncertainty Member State Index Uncertainty

interval interval

1 1 Japan 93.4 92.6 – 94.3

2 2 – 8 Switzerland 92.2 91.2 – 93.3

3 2 – 6 Norway 92.2 91.4 – 93.1

4 2 – 11 Sweden 92.0 91.1 – 93.0

5 2 – 11 Luxembourg 92.0 91.0 – 93.0

6 3 – 11 France 91.9 91.0 – 92.9

7 4 – 14 Canada 91.7 90.8 – 92.6

8 4 – 15 Netherlands 91.6 90.7 – 92.5

9 6 – 13 United Kingdom 91.6 90.9 – 92.3

10 6 – 18 Austria 91.5 90.5 – 92.4

11 7 – 21 Italy 91.4 90.5 – 92.2

12 7 – 19 Australia 91.3 90.4 – 92.2

13 7 – 18 Belgium 91.3 90.2 – 92.3

14 8 – 20 Germany 91.3 90.4 – 92.2

15 7 – 24 United States of America 91.1 89.9 – 92.3

If we now cover 91.1 % and more, these numbers are from 1997. Then why should we spend some hugely inordinate amount of money to cover just a few more people? They are ineligible for coverage through Medicaid or Medicare if elderly or indigent. They are coverable if employed. They almost have to want no coverage to fall into the small percent "not covered." Even illegals are covered in the US.

As the numbers show above, even back in 1997, we were within 2% of the best covearage in the world in Japan. They only covered 93% of the population.

[CCTAU 3,350]

Is that number sufficient for the entire state? Any idea how many of those practice entirely in Ala? I know three Dr's who have practices in Ala & another state.

I have no idea if that number is sufficient or not and my assumption would be that a few/some/a lot/most/all of them practice in other states as well, but, your questions have no bearing on my response to David's implication that Medicare providers were few and far between. MC has more General Practitioners in Al than BCBS. Medicare has 1833 Internal Medicine physicians in Al. MC has 363 Orthopaedic providers to choose from. It has 382 Cardiac physicians, 449 Radiologists, 625 Surgeons, and the list goes on. The point is, the patient's choices aren't as limited as David would have us believe.

I said those accepting new patients were few and far between. I also know three of the hottest Drs here in Decatur and not one takes Medicare.

As far as this whole "not covered" crapola. Anyone, rich or poor, regardless of ability to pay gets medical care at any emergency room in the country. Why do people still CLAIM that they have "no coverage" when in fact they do?

See. That's the problem. There should be no "hot" doctors. All doctors are equal and any one of them should be good enough.

Hogwash and hor$****. You librul bastards take your sick wife or kid to the first available doc. When I say sick, I don't mean a cold. This nations' doctors are not the greatest because they treat a cold well, they are the greatest becasue they can cut your ass apart and put you back together almost as good as new and give you a chance to live a decent productive life. It's better here than anywhere else in the world.

None of my wife's doctors take medicare and her ortho is considered one of the top 3 in the nation. He won't fool with the gubment. Now while some of you may feel confident going to Joe Blow for a spinal issue, we do not. As you have your neck entered from the front and your cervical vertabrae fused, you want the best and newest technology possible. The guys who do this, usually do not take medicare.

Socailize medicine and you will drop this country back 100 years from a medical standpoint. There will be no incentive for newer better procedures or medicines. Malpractice insurance and the threat of litigation is one of the biggest issues facing top-level surgeons today. Many good doctors are just going back to the ER where the hopital pays the insurance and they can just get paid. Lawyers always want to point out that there are not that many payouts. It's not the use of nuclear weapons that affects countries' actions, its the threat of.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Raptor, try to keep up. David said, " As far as this whole "not covered" crapola. Anyone, rich or poor, regardless of ability to pay gets medical care at any emergency room in the country. Why do people still CLAIM that they have "no coverage" when in fact they do?"

To which I responded, "Again, if an uninsured person rolls into the ER with a gunshot wound, yes, he will be given treatment, stabilized and sent to a hospital that cares for indigents. Let him go in with flu symptoms and he's lucky to get 800mg of Motrin. Link demanded!

Better yet, prove me wrong. Go, today, to your ER and complain of low back pain for three days. Tell them you are uninsured, unemployed and are unable to pay your hospital bill. Then tell me how much "medical treatment" you got. If you're nice, they'll give you said 800mg of Motrin and directions to the free clinic." Link demanded!

David's faulty premise was that anyone can simply go to any ER and get free health care, regardless of their ability to pay for it. Maybe you missed that part.

Clerks control healthcare access for uninsured patients USA

With no requirement for healthcare providers to care for uninsured patients seeking routine medical attention, frontline staff -- from clerks to insurance verifiers -- are the gatekeepers, deciding who is seen by the physician and who is turned away, according to research conducted at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

LINK

In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented.

LINK

I can back up what I say because it's the truth.

ACTUALLY, you didnt, and its not.... But thanks for playing! Since I have already destroyed your Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) link with one with the full quote above, maybe you will start to acknowledge the REAL truth here. 91.1% in the US versus 93.4% for the best coverage in Japan. Really doesnt sound like a huge difference to me.

I was actually asking for the "800mg of motrin" link. Try again!

[Tiger Al 0]

Raptor, try to keep up. David said, " As far as this whole "not covered" crapola. Anyone, rich or poor, regardless of ability to pay gets medical care at any emergency room in the country. Why do people still CLAIM that they have "no coverage" when in fact they do?"

To which I responded, "Again, if an uninsured person rolls into the ER with a gunshot wound, yes, he will be given treatment, stabilized and sent to a hospital that cares for indigents. Let him go in with flu symptoms and he's lucky to get 800mg of Motrin. Link demanded!

Better yet, prove me wrong. Go, today, to your ER and complain of low back pain for three days. Tell them you are uninsured, unemployed and are unable to pay your hospital bill. Then tell me how much "medical treatment" you got. If you're nice, they'll give you said 800mg of Motrin and directions to the free clinic." Link demanded!

David's faulty premise was that anyone can simply go to any ER and get free health care, regardless of their ability to pay for it. Maybe you missed that part.

Clerks control healthcare access for uninsured patients USA

With no requirement for healthcare providers to care for uninsured patients seeking routine medical attention, frontline staff -- from clerks to insurance verifiers -- are the gatekeepers, deciding who is seen by the physician and who is turned away, according to research conducted at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

LINK

In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented.

LINK

I can back up what I say because it's the truth.

ACTUALLY, you didnt, and its not.... But thanks for playing! Since I have already destroyed your Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) link with one with the full quote above, maybe you will start to acknowlwedge the REAL truth here.

EMTALA only requires ER's to render treatment for medical EMERGENCIES. And then, it only requires them to treat the patient to stabilize his condition. The AMA's definition of medical emergency is "The presence of acute symptoms of such severity that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in placing an individuals health in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions and/or serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or function." EMTALA doesn't require the ER to treat non-emergent conditions regardless of whether you think it does.

Also, EMTALA doesn't apply at all to non-Medicare participating hospitals, so, they aren't even required to provide emergency care to those who can't pay.

91.1% in the US versus 93.4% for the best coverage in Japan. Really doesnt sound like a huge difference to me.

Unfortunately, the 91% statistic you're grabbing onto isn't saying that 91% of Americans are covered by health insurance. It's talking about the overall performance of the health care system. Nice try, though.

Actually, the % of those covered WAS listed earlier in the Wikipedia link, although you misquoted it, too. You claimed "Employer coverage covers 85% of America today." It really says "59.5%, receive their health insurance coverage through an employer, and about 9% purchase it directly from the market. Government sources cover 27.3% of the population." The actual number of those uninsured, according to your Wiki link, is "46.6 million people in the U.S. (15.9% of the population) who were without healthcare insurance for at least part of that year." That's a lot of people, regardless of its representative percentage, isn't it?

I was actually asking for the "800mg of motrin" link. Try again!

I can't give you a link to the operating protocol of every health care provider in the country. Motrin 800mg happens to be the protocol for my NG unit for LBP. Here's a link that gives you clinical indications and dosage.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Raptor, try to keep up. David said, " As far as this whole "not covered" crapola. Anyone, rich or poor, regardless of ability to pay gets medical care at any emergency room in the country. Why do people still CLAIM that they have "no coverage" when in fact they do?"

To which I responded, "Again, if an uninsured person rolls into the ER with a gunshot wound, yes, he will be given treatment, stabilized and sent to a hospital that cares for indigents. Let him go in with flu symptoms and he's lucky to get 800mg of Motrin. Link demanded!

Better yet, prove me wrong. Go, today, to your ER and complain of low back pain for three days. Tell them you are uninsured, unemployed and are unable to pay your hospital bill. Then tell me how much "medical treatment" you got. If you're nice, they'll give you said 800mg of Motrin and directions to the free clinic." Link demanded!

David's faulty premise was that anyone can simply go to any ER and get free health care, regardless of their ability to pay for it. Maybe you missed that part.

Clerks control healthcare access for uninsured patients USA

With no requirement for healthcare providers to care for uninsured patients seeking routine medical attention, frontline staff -- from clerks to insurance verifiers -- are the gatekeepers, deciding who is seen by the physician and who is turned away, according to research conducted at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

LINK

In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented.

LINK

I can back up what I say because it's the truth.

ACTUALLY, you didnt, and its not.... But thanks for playing! Since I have already destroyed your Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) link with one with the full quote above, maybe you will start to acknowlwedge the REAL truth here.

EMTALA only requires ER's to render treatment for medical EMERGENCIES. WRONG-LIE! You are trying your best to quote from only half the law.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/us...95--dd000-.html

QUOTE

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, EMTALA) is a United States Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions; as a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.

And then, it only requires them to treat the patient to stabilize his condition. LIE! The AMA's definition of medical emergency is "The presence of acute symptoms of such severity that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in placing an individuals health in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions and/or serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or function." EMTALA doesn't require the ER to treat non-emergent conditions regardless of whether you think it does. Wrong! Coverage goes to fevers, colds etc. Worked way too long with folks in Homeless shelter. We had planty refuse medical care. None were ever refused medical care.

Also, EMTALA doesn't apply at all to non-Medicare participating hospitals, so, they aren't even required to provide emergency care to those who can't pay. Who the hell said they did? Link Demanded!

91.1% in the US versus 93.4% for the best coverage in Japan. Really doesnt sound like a huge difference to me.

Unfortunately, the 91% statistic you're grabbing onto isn't saying that 91% of Americans are covered by health insurance. Yes it does. It's talking about the overall performance of the health care system. Nice try, though. No it does not.

Actually, the % of those covered WAS listed earlier in the Wikipedia link, although you misquoted it, too. You claimed "Employer coverage covers 85% of America today." It really says "59.5%, receive their health insurance coverage through an employer, and about 9% purchase it directly from the market. Government sources cover 27.3% of the population."

Actually, 59.5 +27.3 + 9=95.8% Again, even higher than I claimed. Thanks for playing!

I was actually asking for the "800mg of motrin" link. Try again!

I can't give you a link to the operating protocol of every health care provider in the country. Motrin 800mg happens to be the protocol for my NG unit for LBP. Here's a link that gives you clinical indications and dosage.

No I wanted the defacto link where every trip to the emergency room left the patient with "800 mg of motrin" as you claim. I have been to the emergency room myself. I know this to be a lie. Some cant even take motrin, I am for one cant. Therefore, you are implying that ERs exist to basically kill people with total wreckless disregard for real care needs. Al, you know better than this.

[Tiger Al 0]

Raptor, try to keep up. David said, " As far as this whole "not covered" crapola. Anyone, rich or poor, regardless of ability to pay gets medical care at any emergency room in the country. Why do people still CLAIM that they have "no coverage" when in fact they do?"

To which I responded, "Again, if an uninsured person rolls into the ER with a gunshot wound, yes, he will be given treatment, stabilized and sent to a hospital that cares for indigents. Let him go in with flu symptoms and he's lucky to get 800mg of Motrin. Link demanded!

Better yet, prove me wrong. Go, today, to your ER and complain of low back pain for three days. Tell them you are uninsured, unemployed and are unable to pay your hospital bill. Then tell me how much "medical treatment" you got. If you're nice, they'll give you said 800mg of Motrin and directions to the free clinic." Link demanded!

David's faulty premise was that anyone can simply go to any ER and get free health care, regardless of their ability to pay for it. Maybe you missed that part.

Clerks control healthcare access for uninsured patients USA

With no requirement for healthcare providers to care for uninsured patients seeking routine medical attention, frontline staff -- from clerks to insurance verifiers -- are the gatekeepers, deciding who is seen by the physician and who is turned away, according to research conducted at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

LINK

In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented.

LINK

I can back up what I say because it's the truth.

ACTUALLY, you didnt, and its not.... But thanks for playing! Since I have already destroyed your Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) link with one with the full quote above, maybe you will start to acknowlwedge the REAL truth here.

EMTALA only requires ER's to render treatment for medical EMERGENCIES. WRONG-LIE! You are trying your best to quote from only half the law.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/us...95--dd000-.html

QUOTE

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, EMTALA) is a United States Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions; as a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.

And then, it only requires them to treat the patient to stabilize his condition. LIE! The AMA's definition of medical emergency is "The presence of acute symptoms of such severity that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in placing an individuals health in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions and/or serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or function." EMTALA doesn't require the ER to treat non-emergent conditions regardless of whether you think it does. Wrong! Coverage goes to fevers, colds etc. Worked way too long with folks in Homeless shelter. We had planty refuse medical care. None were ever refused medical care.

Also, EMTALA doesn't apply at all to non-Medicare participating hospitals, so, they aren't even required to provide emergency care to those who can't pay. Who the hell said they did? Link Demanded!

91.1% in the US versus 93.4% for the best coverage in Japan. Really doesnt sound like a huge difference to me.

Unfortunately, the 91% statistic you're grabbing onto isn't saying that 91% of Americans are covered by health insurance. Yes it does. It's talking about the overall performance of the health care system. Nice try, though. No it does not.

Actually, the % of those covered WAS listed earlier in the Wikipedia link, although you misquoted it, too. You claimed "Employer coverage covers 85% of America today." It really says "59.5%, receive their health insurance coverage through an employer, and about 9% purchase it directly from the market. Government sources cover 27.3% of the population."

Actually, 59.5 +27.3 + 9=95.8% Again, even higher than I claimed. Thanks for playing!

I was actually asking for the "800mg of motrin" link. Try again!

I can't give you a link to the operating protocol of every health care provider in the country. Motrin 800mg happens to be the protocol for my NG unit for LBP. Here's a link that gives you clinical indications and dosage.

No I wanted the defacto link where every trip to the emergency room left the patient with "800 mg of motrin" as you claim. I have been to the emergency room myself. I know this to be a lie. Some cant even take motrin, I am for one cant. Therefore, you are implying that ERs exist to basically kill people with total wreckless disregard for real care needs. Al, you know better than this.

You're an idiot.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Again Al, Thanks for playing!

[LegalEagle 22]

Some of you apparently don't like "Hillary Care."

How do you feel about "Obama Care"?