DNC's latest youth propaganda effort meets with controversy

[misterman]

This old cartoon of an argument?

Is it not true?

I didn't say people couldn't pay in advance. I suggested people could actually pay voluntarily within free insurance cooperatives, rather than being forced to pay, and forcing others to pay. But people don't understand the concept of freedom anymore. Everything has to be imposed in one way or another.

I think you're right. I support a different kind of reform. I say you should be able to opt out of buying insurance. You would sign a form saying you disavow all public or charity help if you get sick or injured. If you can't pay your own way, you agree to just die. No guaranteed emergency room care either, which is current law. You'd wear a little bracelet that says "uninsured" so they'd know to get payment upfront, in cash.

[Dan_77]

No Euthanasia nor Abortion? Do you really want to assert the AMA is bound by this oath?

I was referencing the part of the oath which swears that they treat people as needed, without referencing any ability to pay.

Silly asides aside, the Congress requires hospitals to see all emergency patients despite lack of ability to pay or nationality. Naturally, congress wants nothing to do with paying for the treatment. Just mandated pro bono work.

Care to show me where this is regulated? And then after that, maybe you can explain the purpose of the regulation, which voids your argument.

Hint: It has nothing to do with what "Congress" wants and everything to do with protecting how doctors practice medicine anyway.

[grandpa]

Is it not true?

No, it is not true, at least as an absolute.

I think you're right.
I support a different kind of reform.
I say you should be able to opt out of
buying insurance.
You would sign a form saying you disavow all public
or charity help if you get sick or injured.
If you can't pay your own way, you agree to
just die.
No guaranteed emergency room care either, which is current law.
You'd wear a little bracelet that says "uninsured" so they'd
know to get payment upfront, in cash.

Voluntary, consumer-based insurance is something politicians could investigate at this minute, but I am sure they are not doing so. These people are addicted to flexing their power. There is a simple principle that could solve the health care crisis: "You can't have one rule for one set of people and one rule for others." I characterize the support for this sentiment as very wide, and it could be adopted voluntarily by consumers who, if they were smart, would pool together their money and resources better as a form of social insurance. The Democrats could help in this regard, but haven't really been very much. Being a political party, they've been more interested in legislating from above than activism from below. And, unfortunately, few if any of them would pick up a pencil and jot this kind of critique down. They don't really care about principled concerns regarding taxation.

But they are right on one thing: "U" for uninsured is one of today's scarlet letters.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

I was referencing the part of the oath which swears
that they treat people as needed, without referencing any ability
to pay.

Unfortunately, that part of the traditional oath is no longer relevant in many people's lives. I'm still waiting for a good argument against that part of the oath. And I'm not totally stubborn. In the past, people with good arguments have been able to persuade me
to abandon what I think.

Grandpa h.

[Apeman81]

I was referencing the part of the oath which swears that they treat people as needed, without referencing any ability to pay.



Care to show me where this is regulated? And then after that, maybe you can explain the purpose of the regulation, which voids your argument.

Hint: It has nothing to do with what "Congress" wants and everything to do with protecting how doctors practice medicine anyway.

AH! Thus you hope to convince people with selective application of the Oath. Good luck with that.

Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally designed to provide "emergency" care to anyone reqardless of legal status or ability to pay, it has been contorted by the lovers of tort to ensure that anyone with the sniffles must be seen upon demand.

Greed for money and power has corrupted the system. Imagine that

[Dan_77]

AH! Thus you hope to convince people with selective application of the Oath. Good luck with that.

Not at all. I was merely pointing out that the ethics of doctors put into practice the EMTLA with or without the government protections.

Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally designed to provide "emergency" care to anyone reqardless of legal status or ability to pay,

Of course, like most people who just read the Wikipedia on a law and fancy themselves a lawyer or legislative expert, you get the purpose of the law wrong.

The purpose of the law is to protect doctors who were already treating patients without regard to ability to pay, anyway. It was not doctors but higher-ups who facilitated the practice of patient dumping, whereas the "front line" medical professionals were already treating people who came in without regard to their ability to pay. The law simply protects those people from being fired.

Its implementation has been imperfect, for sure (the AMA is currently lobbying for changes).

Nevertheless, it was certainly humorous to watch you fall right into that trap.

it has been contorted by the lovers of tort to ensure that anyone with the sniffles must be seen upon demand.

Do you have any data on how many lawsuits are filed on the basis of EMTLA or related claims (i.e. refusal to treat due to ability to pay)?

Greed for money and power has corrupted the system. Imagine that

And your sadly ironic solution is to enable hospitals to greedily treat only wealthy patients. Curious.

[Apeman81]

Not at all. I was merely pointing out that the ethics of doctors put into practice the EMTLA with or without the government protections.



Of course, like most people who just read the Wikipedia on a law and fancy themselves a lawyer or legislative expert, you get the purpose of the law wrong.

The purpose of the law is to protect doctors who were already treating patients without regard to ability to pay, anyway. It was not doctors but higher-ups who facilitated the practice of patient dumping, whereas the "front line" medical professionals were already treating people who came in without regard to their ability to pay. The law simply protects those people from being fired.

Its implementation has been imperfect, for sure (the AMA is currently lobbying for changes).

Nevertheless, it was certainly humorous to watch you fall right into that trap.



Do you have any data on how many lawsuits are filed on the basis of EMTLA or related claims (i.e. refusal to treat due to ability to pay)?



And your sadly ironic solution is to enable hospitals to greedily treat only wealthy patients. Curious.

Blather to the extreme.

Revisionist reasoning for the law does not change the facts. The congress required hospitals to provide services for those seeking care with no means of payment.

The Law:

§ 1395dd. Examination and treatment for emergency medical conditions and women in labor
(a) Medical screening requirement
In the case of a hospital that has a hospital emergency department, if any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to the emergency department and a request is made on the individual’s behalf for examination or treatment for a medical condition, the hospital must provide for an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the hospital’s emergency department, including ancillary services routinely available to the emergency department, to determine whether or not an emergency medical condition (within the meaning of subsection (e)(1) of this section) exists

The contains many section that spell out the punishment for a hospital that does not dispense the federally mandated care.

Perhaps you'd care to show the parts that "protect" doctors?

[Dan_77]

Blather to the extreme.

Revisionist reasoning for the law does not change the facts. The congress required hospitals to provide services for those seeking care with no means of payment.

And what would be your alternative?

Furthermore, you did not address my query: Do you have any data on how many lawsuits are filed on the basis of EMTLA or related claims (i.e. refusal to treat due to ability to pay)?

The contains many section that spell out the punishment for a hospital that does not dispense the federally mandated care.

Perhaps you'd care to show the parts that "protect" doctors?

Again, you are but a layperson, who reads the text of a law and does not actually understand it. Understanding law is more than just reading the text and the Wiki. There are subtle interplays that often cause other consequences, intended or otherwise, to a law. There's a reason why becoming an attorney requires three years of law school after a bachelor's degree, and there's a reason why becoming a good attorney requires years of practice.

In writing the law, Congress took the "choice" of whether to treat poor patients out of the hands of doctors. Prior to the law, hospital administrators could force doctors, or attempt to force them through threat of termination, into denying treatment on the basis of ability to pay. Once the law was passed, doctors could point to the law and hospital administrators could no longer threaten to fire them for treating patients who could not pay, since they were merely following the law.

Ergo, Congress was protecting the practice doctors were already committed to, which is that when an acutely injured patient comes into an ER, they at least bring them to a stable, steady state before asking questions about their ability to pay.

Now, is that sufficient to make you understand you have misjudged the motivations for this law, or would you like my full law review article on the topic?

[SoylentGreen]

And what would be your alternative?



Ergo, Congress was protecting the practice doctors were already committed to, which is that when an acutely injured patient comes into an ER, they at least bring them to a stable, steady state before asking questions about their ability to pay.

Now, is that sufficient to make you understand you have misjudged the motivations for this law, or would you like my full law review article on the topic?

nice that the law covers emergency care. but what about long term medical supervision? doctors are also committed to keeping people alive not just stabilizing them.

[grandpa]

nice that the law covers emergency care.
but what about long term medical supervision?

Not only that, but you want to make sure that care has been good at each facility, and that there are enough facilities to begin with. I've said it before but I will repeat it: Profit should not be the main priority.

Grandpa h.

[soothsayer]

Profit should not be the main priority.

Competition should be.
Those who enter medicine with a reasonable expectation of reward for their efforts in the vast majority share a number of motivations not the least of which is humanitarian.
Competition keeps the greedy in check, and the truly remarkably talented who are also greedy may find willing patients, but the inept, regardless of what they charge, will be forced to seek employment elsewhere in short order by a number of mechanisms, market or otherwise.
A centrally-dictated system perverts this natural process and institutionalizes lower standards.

[SoylentGreen]

Competition should be.
Those who enter medicine with a reasonable expectation of reward for their efforts in the vast majority share a number of motivations not the least of which is humanitarian.
Competition keeps the greedy in check, and the truly remarkably talented who are also greedy may find willing patients, but the inept, regardless of what they charge, will be forced to seek employment elsewhere in short order by a number of mechanisms, market or otherwise.
A centrally-dictated system perverts this natural process and institutionalizes lower standards.

Do you always put rhetorical nonsense before intelligent thought? Silly question, of course you do.

instead of trying to dictate what you imagine the faults will be, try looking at what happens in other countries.
doctors need centralised hospitals so that they can afford to run all the very expensive machinery needed in hospitals these days.
here they are run as S.O.E.'s ( state owned enterprises) which means they are independent commercial operations. above them is the ministry of health that dictate policy and regulations but not the financial operation or success of any hospital.

other countries have been through this process and america would do well to look at what already is instead of just complaining and whinging about how unfair it will be.