12-29-2012, 08:26 AM
|
#61
|
|
Junior
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 494
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue
Based on this thread, though ... still not convinced.
|
What has you convinced that he does not understand how health insurance works?
|
|
|
12-29-2012, 08:42 AM
|
#62
|
|
Gator Country Diamond
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 47,714
|
First post, plus link.
I disagree vehemently with Obamacare, as it not only fixes nothing, it exacerbates the situation. BUT ... it's extended, socialized health insurance. As even the article explains, the doctors currently have choices as to who they treat, what they accept, etc. None of that changes.
Doctors should not be the recipient of our sympathy - they'll be fine. It's the rest of us who will be paying the doctors through Obamacare who deserve the sympathy.
__________________
GO GATORS
|
|
|
12-29-2012, 10:27 AM
|
#63
|
|
Gator Country Silver
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 7,845
|
I was talking to a friend of mine last night who is a rehab doc (Physical medicine and Rehabilitation). One of the plans has decreased the rates to $60 for 10 therapies. That is $6 an hour. Plus you take on the risk of being sued for your trouble. Some of her friends are signing, but she refuses. It is absurd. She was also telling me about her Medicare renewal application. It was denied because her husband is in her bank account. Just the time and money we spend as doctors to just be able to practice is simply absurd. We are in agreement that we rather just not work. We are the lucky ones with husbands who can support our family. All that time studying and training down the drain. I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for me for sure, but I feel sorry for the American people- everyone will get chitty rationed care, and that is worse for the middle class.
__________________
"I am austingtr, and I'm a tennis addict"
|
|
|
12-29-2012, 07:26 PM
|
#64
|
|
Heisman Winner
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The ATL
Posts: 5,355
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue
Based on this thread, though ... still not convinced.
|
Really? How so?
__________________
All your trophy are belong to us
|
|
|
12-30-2012, 09:15 AM
|
#65
|
|
Gator Country Gold
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 15,325
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by surfn1080
What has you convinced that he does not understand how health insurance works?
|
He doesn't mean it. That's just the current 'go-to' phrase when you are I'll-equipped to debate the topic on its merits alone...
You see it all the time in here.... It's the Internet equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?"
|
|
|
12-31-2012, 03:04 PM
|
#66
|
|
Heisman Winner
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: East Coast of FL
Posts: 5,626
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Row6
"In 1986, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act known as EMTALA (Section 1867 (a) of the Social Security Act) and sometimes referred to as the "Patient Anti-Dumping Act" was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Reagan. The purpose of the Act was to ensure that acutely ill patients who are uninsured or underinsured receive appropriate emergency care and to prevent hospitals from refusing to treat certain populations of patients who present to the emergency department. Although EMTALA was passed to protect those who lack financial resources or medical insurance, it applies to all seeking care from a hospital's emergency department in all states and territories of the United States. However, not all hospitals have obligations under EMTALA. Only hospitals that accept federal funds from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), a branch of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), are subject to civil liability under the Act. The CMS and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) enforce EMTALA. The OIG can fine Hospitals $50,000 per violation ($25,000 for hospitals with less than 100 beds) and possibly terminate their Medicare provider agreement. Individual physicians also may receive a fine up to $50,000 and be excluded from future Medicare funding."
http://www.ascensionhealth.org/index...146&Itemid=172
|
Nice def of EMTALA was there a point?
__________________
Res ipsa loquitur
|
|
|
12-31-2012, 03:25 PM
|
#67
|
|
Gator Country Diamond
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 47,714
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveFla
He doesn't mean it. That's just the current 'go-to' phrase when you are I'll-equipped to debate the topic on its merits alone...
You see it all the time in here.... It's the Internet equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?"
|
Actually, I expounded since then. What you'll see around here all the time are people who are too lazy (or excited) to read the thread before they reply.
__________________
GO GATORS
|
|
|
12-31-2012, 08:44 PM
|
#68
|
|
Gator Country Silver
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,030
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by gatorpa
Nice def of EMTALA was there a point?
|
To clarify the discussion by pointing out what right to health care we have by law as opposed to opinion.
|
|
|
12-31-2012, 08:50 PM
|
#69
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,928
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Row6
To clarify the discussion by pointing out what right to health care we have by law as opposed to opinion.
|
It is vaporous and ephemeral. Again, the patient is still legally and morally obligated to pay for the care they receive under that statute. If a law required that a store take checks for big ticket items, would that demonstrate a "right" to the item? Obviously not.
|
|
|
12-31-2012, 09:14 PM
|
#70
|
|
Heisman Winner
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: East Coast of FL
Posts: 5,626
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Row6
To clarify the discussion by pointing out what right to health care we have by law as opposed to opinion.
|
Actually the "right" is to a "medical screening exam" and to "treatment and stabilization of life threatening conditions".
Over the years hospitals have found it easier to just treat the non emergency, non insured for their BS complaints. That is and will change as more and more people are force to the ER for BS issues, and as Medicaid increasing refuses to pay for ER visits.
__________________
Res ipsa loquitur
|
|
|
12-31-2012, 10:01 PM
|
#71
|
|
Gator Country Silver
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,030
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichiGator2002
It is vaporous and ephemeral. Again, the patient is still legally and morally obligated to pay for the care they receive under that statute. If a law required that a store take checks for big ticket items, would that demonstrate a "right" to the item? Obviously not.
|
You're entitled to your opinion on what you think facts may mean but can you please provide metaphors that make sense to explain it.
|
|
|
12-31-2012, 10:05 PM
|
#72
|
|
Gator Country Silver
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,030
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by gatorpa
Actually the "right" is to a "medical screening exam" and to "treatment and stabilization of life threatening conditions".
Over the years hospitals have found it easier to just treat the non emergency, non insured for their BS complaints. That is and will change as more and more people are force to the ER for BS issues, and as Medicaid increasing refuses to pay for ER visits.
|
Perhaps, but that will be up to the Inspector General to adjudicate. Of course with our new health care insurance system there will be fewer patients without regular doctors forced to seek treatment at the ER.
|
|
|
12-31-2012, 11:10 PM
|
#73
|
|
VIP Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,874
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Row6
To clarify the discussion by pointing out what right to health care we have by law as opposed to opinion.
|
the aw does not create a right to healthcare. it only applies tohospitals receiving federal money from medicaid/medicare
it establishes a condition of receiving federal money. if it is a right, itwould apply to all medical providers and would not provide a way to opt out.
|
|
|
01-01-2013, 09:42 AM
|
#74
|
|
Gator Country Silver
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,030
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATLitigator
the aw does not create a right to healthcare. it only applies tohospitals receiving federal money from medicaid/medicare
it establishes a condition of receiving federal money. if it is a right, itwould apply to all medical providers and would not provide a way to opt out.
|
Of course it does. A right is still a right even when not absolute. This particular one is far reaching since most hospitals fall under it.
|
|
|
01-01-2013, 10:10 AM
|
#75
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,928
|
If EMTALA created any rights, they were some amalgam of privacy or contract interests. All that has been protected is that the (very nominal) treatment doesn't come with proof of payment. The law does not create a right to healthcare. Your rights are not something you have to pay for just for the right to manifest. An actual right to healthcare would create in others a positive duty to give it to you. Give, not sell. Just because some deadbeats and losers will accept treatment and then steal it by not paying what they owe, that is not by the operation of the law.
|
|
|
01-01-2013, 11:06 AM
|
#76
|
|
Gator Country Silver
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,030
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichiGator2002
If EMTALA created any rights, they were some amalgam of privacy or contract interests. All that has been protected is that the (very nominal) treatment doesn't come with proof of payment. The law does not create a right to healthcare. Your rights are not something you have to pay for just for the right to manifest. An actual right to healthcare would create in others a positive duty to give it to you. Give, not sell. Just because some deadbeats and losers will accept treatment and then steal it by not paying what they owe, that is not by the operation of the law.
|
It's a right with far reaching application. That is obvious from visiting our ERs. That unintended consequence should be ameliorated as more Americans have regular docs through the new health care insurance law.
|
|
|
01-01-2013, 11:09 AM
|
#77
|
|
VIP Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,874
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Row6
Of course it does. A right is still a right even when not absolute. This particular one is far reaching since most hospitals fall under it.
|
if every hospital and other medical provider refused medicare/medicaid funds, therefore making them exempt from this act, they would no longer have to treat you....therefore you will not get healthcare, therfore no right
If I get arrested, and I want a trial by jury, I'm going to have a trial....right
I can force the state to give me a jury trial, you cannot force a hospital to provide care( in my example)
|
|
|
01-01-2013, 11:15 AM
|
#78
|
|
Gator Country Silver
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,030
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATLitigator
if every hospital and other medical provider refused medicare/medicaid funds, therefore making them exempt from this act, they would no longer have to treat you....therefore you will not get healthcare, therfore no right
If I get arrested, and I want a trial by jury, I'm going to have a trial....right
I can force the state to give me a jury trial, you cannot force a hospital to provide care( in my example)
|
I think I posted a pretty complete description of the law, and it's not up to the hospitals discretion.
|
|
|
01-01-2013, 05:38 PM
|
#79
|
|
VIP Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,874
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Row6
I think I posted a pretty complete description of the law, and it's not up to the hospitals discretion.
|
However, not all hospitals have obligations under EMTALA. Only hospitals that accept federal funds from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), a branch of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), are subject to civil liability under the Act.
Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas...#ixzz2GlYpmO70
yes, it is up to the hospitals. they can refuse to accept federal money (medicare & medicaid contracts) and then are not subject to the act and can therefore, deny care
|
|
|
01-01-2013, 10:31 PM
|
#80
|
|
Heisman Winner
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: East Coast of FL
Posts: 5,626
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Row6
Perhaps, but that will be up to the Inspector General to adjudicate. Of course with our new health care insurance system there will be fewer patients without regular doctors forced to seek treatment at the ER.
|
If doctors actually agree to sign up to accept the new ins. Soooo many take Fl Medicaid :sarcastically grins:
__________________
Res ipsa loquitur
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|