Repealing Obamacare could have severe repercussions on hospitals (solutions, how much, claim)

[njquestions]

Originally Posted by ALackOfCreativity

I do know that. It's the law. However, I don't see a way to address your complaints without changing that.

My complaint was not that people are going to the hospital without carrying a physical copy of their insurance card. My complaint was that the people who utilize the healthcare system the most are often the ones who pay the least.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by njquestions

Ah, so you generously allow people to decide whether they want to have their healthcare paid for by other people or not. That's interesting.

Are you willing to have much higher taxes to pay for the wars?

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by njquestions

Really? When is the last time you racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills? You don't have to tell me for what, so don't claim that it's private. Just tell me when you did it. Thanks.

I already stated that my fiances best friend recently racked up a $250k hospital bill due to her colitis ?sp?. Fortunately, she had insurance, but still had to pay $1,000 out of pocket

[njquestions]

Originally Posted by natalie469

Well duh, we all pay for the uninsured.

I know. That's an accurate observation that directly contradicts your previous declaration, which was a very wise declaration indeed.

[ALackOfCreativity]

Originally Posted by njquestions

My complaint was not that people are going to the hospital without carrying a physical copy of their insurance card. My complaint was that the people who utilize the healthcare system the most are often the ones who pay the least.

Understood -- however, how would you distinguish between someone who shows up at the hospital doorstep with no insurance card on them because they left it at home, because they chose to self-insure, or because they have no ability or intent to pay?

Once you pay for emergency hospital care but not preventative or out-of-hospital emergency care you're shooting yourself in the foot -- people will show up to the hospital for non-emergent care and try to play it off as emergent and/or have otherwise preventable emergencies.

There isn't really a practical way to both have EMTALA and not do some sort of broader government subsidized care for the indigent. Or at least, if such a way exists I'm not aware of it. This is a dilemma that long predates the ACA (of which I am no fan). I get that it's frustrating, but I for sure don't have a better alternative and have yet to have heard one from someone else.

[njquestions]

Originally Posted by ALackOfCreativity

Understood -- however, how would you distinguish between someone who shows up at the hospital doorstep with no insurance card on them because they left it at home, because they chose to self-insure, or because they have no ability or intent to pay?

You don't need to. If they don't pay, you put them in jail. It's not a difficult dilemma, if you wanted to address it in actuality. It becomes more difficult if you throw in a lot of stipulations like "oh, well, if they don't pay then you can't have any penalties, so now tell me how you would handle it?" Then, yes, I'd say, "huh, that's a weird stipulation, but I guess in that case you are right."

[njquestions]

P.S. People always claim that healthcare will cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars, which is impossible to manage. OK, ignoring that you should be able to purchase "catastrophic" insurance for those specific instances and pay for bills that are manageable, people have no problem, for example, purchasing houses with 30-year mortgages. Is your home worth more than your life? If so, priorities.


In other words, the entire "debate" on healthcare is more predicated on a number of falsehoods and artificial contrivances than reality.

[Hoonose]

Originally Posted by njquestions

Ah, so you generously allow people to decide whether they want to have their healthcare paid for by other people or not. That's interesting.

Not so much generosity as choice. From both sides. The patient and providers.

[aridon]

If only we didn't put so much money into war and tax cuts for people that already pay lower actual tax rates than the middle class we could easily afford to have nice things here.

Simple fact is the current system leaves people out to die while those with money to afford the co-pays and deductibles get care. Until they run out of money or before Obamacare end up with a pre exsiting condition and not be able to get healthcare.

We have a large segment of our population that lives on the edge of financial ruin should they get sick and end up with a 10k out of pocket maximum on their insurance. Heaven forbid they get sick in November and get hit twice. Pretty much most of the middle class and below are stuck waiting it out hoping they stay healthy enough until they get on Medicare. Shouldn't be like that.

Unfortunately we have a group in this country that doesn't want to see everyone have equal care because in their eyes they are NOT equal as people.

Very Jesus like, you know he was really big on means testing for things like food and care.

[njquestions]

Originally Posted by Hoonose

Not so much generosity as choice. From both sides. The patient and providers.

Sure, as long as you allow people to opt out of paying for the people who opt in and allow providers to opt out of accepting those patients, no problem. I'm all for options.