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.
If they were eligible for Medicaid before Obamacare, they're still either eligible for Medicaid or have insurance. If the hospital would have cared for them before as a "loss," it will still care for them now as a "loss."
If they are or were eligible for Medicaid then they aren't uninsured. With Medicaid, the hospital gets reimbursed by the government. With the uninsured you have to pay out of pocket. For emergency services you will pay after you are treated, but cancer is not an emergency issue and you would have to pay in advance or as you go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
Nobody was left to die on the hospital steps now who would not have been left to die on the hospital steps before...and that is still nobody.
It's not nobody though. The uninsured can get treatment for a broken leg or arm, but they aren't going to get treatment for cancer, diabetes, or anything else that does not fit into EMTALA. Fortunately, the USA has some charities that help fund medical needs, but that has nothing to do with the hospital.
No, after three years the states are responsible for small percentage of the cost of the program. And think of the millions of people who can be helped right now.
But it's obvious you didn't read the rest of my post past the first paragraph. You didn't read the CBO report I linked that shows how expanding Medicaid actually saves states money in the long run. I understand why you didn't--can't have any facts mess up the right wing talking points you have been fed. Whatever you do, don't educate yourself beyond what you've been told--it might make you actually think. Scary, scary idea, having to think for yourself...
You couldn't be more mistaken but carry on with your false assumptions if that brings you comfort. The CBO rarely gets thing right.
If they are or were eligible for Medicaid then they aren't uninsured. With Medicaid, the hospital gets reimbursed by the government. With the uninsured you have to pay out of pocket. For emergency services you will pay after you are treated, but cancer is not an emergency issue and you would have to pay in advance or as you go.
It's not nobody though. The uninsured can get treatment for a broken leg or arm, but they aren't going to get treatment for cancer, diabetes, or anything else that does not fit into EMTALA. Fortunately, the USA has some charities that help fund medical needs, but that has nothing to do with the hospital.
Yet, she did get cancer treatment...without commercial insurance, without money of her own, and without upfront help from charities.
If they were eligible for Medicaid before Obamacare, they're still either eligible for Medicaid or have insurance. If the hospital would have cared for them before as a "loss," it will still care for them now as a "loss."
Nobody was left to die on the hospital steps now who would not have been left to die on the hospital steps before...and that is still nobody.
Thats the thing though. In many instances, single parent less adults who were poor did not have access to medicaid. Mediciad, for the longest time, was restricted to poor families (aka adults with a kid). The ACA help expand Medicaid to single poor adults.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
Yet, she did get cancer treatment...without commercial insurance, without money of her own, and without upfront help from charities.
Medicaid isnt the same as being uninsured. If she wasn't on medicaid....her story would have turned out alot differently
Keep whining folks, your noise will push us to a single payer system even faster. You are your own worst enemy and are too dumb to even know it, it is as if someone else was pulling your strings, have you checked lately?
A liberal meme pops up again--criticism of a failed liberal policy is labeled as "whining."
What of all the people who are being bumped from full-time to part-time work? Suck it up and get 2 part time jobs you whiner! BTW this trend dramatically increases peoples' commute time, fuel consumption, and carbon emissions. If you have 2 part time jobs in opposite ends of town, now you are making 4 trips per day instead of 2. And it's probably not going to be practical for you to use public transit.
The ACA has nothing to do with real health care, its all about control of the people...Thats all.
Everyone at my company, 500 plus, policy's went up in monthly cost and deductbles went up.
And Medicaid still exists. She would get the same care not that she got then.
Nobody claimed that Medicaid doesn't exist anymore. The claim is that you cannot get cancer treatment without insurance. Some exceptions do exist, such as charities and clinical trials, but you can't walk into a hospital for cancer treatment and expect to be covered by EMTALA. If your acquaintance did not qualify for Medicaid she would have been SOL.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stizzel
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I bet you also thought that a patient with cancer could show up to the ER and say, "hey doc, give me some of that chemo and fix me up!!!" EMTALA and er visits only worked for short and acute conditions.
If you had a chronic conditions such as cancer, and uninsured, you were just about SOL, depending on where you live.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I knew a woman who did precisely that, an unemployed (long unemployed) meth addict unwed mother. She went into an emergency room in December, 2012, complaining of pain and general ill health. She was tested and diagnosed with leukemia. She then underwent full treatment that went through August of 2013.
That was mostly all on Medicaid and the hospital....
So it does work to go to the emergency room for cancer.
....For instance, the woman with insurance got considerably more hospital bed time after chemo treatments than the woman without insurance, and she got a lot more medication for pain and other issues.
Maybe that was a matter of the two women having differences in their tolerance of the chemo, but both seemed to have the same degree of difficulties, from the reports I got.
Estimates are the 7,500 people will die every year just in Florida because Rick Scott refused the Medicaid expansion.
That's a lot of dead people for so-called 'savings'. What are they saving for if not to help their citizens?
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.
