Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can anyone regardless of citizenship, or legal status go into an emergency room and get care? Can said people if they are foreign nationals go back abroad and skip out on their bills with relative impunity? It can be quite challenging to enforce a judgment against A. someone here illegally or B. someone in a foreign country with no/little property in the US. It can also be quite challenging to enforce a judgment against an American who, for whatever reason, is judgment proof.
Someone has to pay though...hospitals and insurance holders.
It also doesn't have to be life threating it simply must be "emergency" people show up to the emergency rooms for everything under the sun from deliveries to sutures. While its true it doesn't include preventive or follow up care, but it is rather close to unlimited for what it does cover.
Of course.
And no - it doesn't have to be life-threatening to show up to an emergency room. The reason people go to emergency rooms for non-life-threatening conditions is that they won't make a doctor's office appointment and pay out of their own pocket.
In fact - illegals could do that if they wanted to pay for their care, and so can anyone. Doctors will take cash-paying patients.
Instead they will show up to an emergency room and are treated. No one gets sent away. No one.
If they have some minor problem, they are seen by a doctor, treated, and released - just like they would be in a much cheaper doctor's office.
If they have a bigger problem, they are admitted and given the same kind of treatment, same ICU room, or maternity unit room as the paying patients are given, only they will not pay a dime.
Here is the definition of emergency, from your link: It is in quotes, so I'm thinking it came straight from the law:
An emergency medical condition is defined as "a condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in placing the individual's health [or the health of an unborn child] in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of bodily organs."
Obviously they're not talking about the common cold here. Delivery of a child is included.
Yes, but why would a rational person go to an emergency room or seek professional health care if they did not believe their health wasn't potentially in serious jeopardy somewhere down the line from neglecting treatment. People generally deal with health care issues on their own if they are not serious so they can avoid the costs and risk of judgements. There is a big difference between that and an immediate life threating condition like a stroke and something that could reasonably, (more likely then not) turn into a life threating condition eventually if untreated.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 11-18-2010 at 04:29 PM..
Here is the definition of emergency, from your link: It is in quotes, so I'm thinking it came straight from the law:
An emergency medical condition is defined as "a condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in placing the individual's health [or the health of an unborn child] in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of bodily organs."
Obviously they're not talking about the common cold here. Delivery of a child is included.
Guess again. The emergency rooms across the country are filled with people who have nothing more than a common cold, babies with slight fevers, people with all kinds of conditions where they could have just as easily made an appointment with a doctor - except they would have to pay something. Something less than their monthly cellphone bill or video game.
Yes, but why would a rational person go to an emergency room or seek professional health care if they did not believe their health wasn't potentially in serious jeopardy somewhere down the line from neglecting treatment. People generally deal with health care issues on their own if they are not serious so they can avoid the costs and risk of judgements. There is a big difference between that and an immediate life threating condition like a stroke and something that could reasonably, (more likely then not) turn into a life threating condition eventually if untreated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
Guess again. The emergency rooms across the country are filled with people who have nothing more than a common cold, babies with slight fevers, people with all kinds of conditions where they could have just as easily made an appointment with a doctor - except they would have to pay something. Something less than their monthly cellphone bill or video game.
The ER does not have to treat them if they don't have a life-threatening illness. People are not getting all this ER care for free, either. Guess again.
The ER does not have to treat them if they don't have a life-threatening illness. People are not getting all this ER care for free, either. Guess again.
Where in those articles does it say "life-threatening" and of course if you carry insurance, or have things they can go after you're not getting it for free someone has to pay. On the other hand if you are an illegal, or judgment proof its de facto free and they have to double dip against the insured. That is why I like the democratic plan. It forces the deadbeats on to the insurance roles. Unfortunately there is no way to effectively do the with illegal immigrants.
The ER does not have to treat them if they don't have a life-threatening illness. People are not getting all this ER care for free, either. Guess again.
Apparently your first link contradicts your second link:
"The uninsured have long been more frequent users of (emergency rooms). That's not new....."
And it seems to be a California problem especially:
"More than 70 California hospitals have closed in the past 10 years due to financial pressures, said Jan Emerson, spokeswoman for the California Hospital Association."
And it seems your second link is just combining Medicaid patients into the insured category - I'm sure we all know that Medicaid patients would abuse the system - why not? It certainly costs them nothing:
That Medicaid patients use the ER more regularly is predictable, says Frank McGeorge, a senior staff physician in the ER at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, whose ER sees a high rate of Medicaid patients — 34%.
"High Medicaid utilization is no surprise, many patients have difficulty finding primary-care providers who take Medicaid, so the ER is the only alternative," McGeorge says.
Where in those articles does it say "life-threatening" and of course if you carry insurance, or have things they can go after you're not getting it for free someone has to pay. On the other hand if you are an illegal, or judgment proof its de facto free and they have to double dip against the insured. That is why I like the democratic plan. It forces the deadbeats on to the insurance roles. Unfortunately there is no way to effectively do the with illegal immigrants.
My links were intended to show that lots of insured people use the ER.
The law says the ER only has to treat people with lifethreatening conditions if they can't afford to pay.
The point is, ERs may be full of people with sore throats, and other conditions that a doctor could see, but the law says the only people that have to be treated without regard to payment source are those with life threatening conditions, which it defines.
My links were intended to show that lots of insured people use the ER.
The law says the ER only has to treat people with lifethreatening conditions if they can't afford to pay.
The point is, ERs may be full of people with sore throats, and other conditions that a doctor could see, but the law says the only people that have to be treated without regard to payment source are those with life threatening conditions, which it defines.
Capiche?
No the law does not say that. it says Potentially life or limb threatening. There are numerous things that are not themselves life or limb threatening that could be if left untreated and must be ascertained to the best of the hospitals ability and if found to be life threating must be treated. Again if a person doesn't think their problem could become serious without medical attention why go to an emergency room. In other words, if you think you may have a life threating condition you can go to the ER where you will be told what you have an how to treat it, or if it is life threating you will be treated de-facto free of cost unless you are somehow not judgment proof.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 11-18-2010 at 05:23 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
