THIS is why you should READ THE BILL.. the LIES out there are INSANE!! Breakdown by lie & Line with TRUTH! (generation, Whitehouse)

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by hitchcock

Can you get me a pair of those rose coloured glasses you have greatday.

I don't wear glasses - colored or otherwise.

We have the FINEST health care in the world.

[jkbatca]

Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC

Interesting read.

I would caution taking one interpretation over the other. Government is very astute at crafting language that can be used to cover a vast array of circumstances. This is perhaps the one thing Government does well. Trust me. A good portion of my job is spent interpreting federal aviation regulations for the general public, and I can assure you, they don't always like the outcome. The ambiguity is noxious. The moment you interpret the bill at face value, government lawyers will have contorted it to fit the latest object of consternation (ie. am I covered by my insurance?).

This is the best argument against the currently proposed legislation. I've read some (not all 1000 pages!) of the bill, and parts of it are vaguely worded and subject to lawyer interpretation. After tons of lawsuits, judges rulings, etc. I don't trust we'll get the health care we expect from this bill after that process runs its course.

I would go one step further in that a 1000 pages of laws are 99.999% guaranteed to produce "unintended consequences". For example, when people say "you'll get to keep your current coverage", what's to stop employers from dropping coverage when they can save tons of money by forcing employees to go on Obamacare? In fact, many organizations and business owners are pushing for this legislation specifically because of this point. One example I find funny is AARP! AARP is pushing hard for Obamacare. Guess what one of the membership items they offer are? Health insurance! Can you say "conflict of interest"? The underlying result not spoken by Obamabots here is "yes, you get to keep your current plan, just too bad there will not be any plan to keep."

This whole legislation is a weasel's dream of scams, unintended consequences, and lawsuits waiting to happen. People who attempt to project an appearance of being "deep thinkers" are not thinking through the consequences of this legislation...

[Tambintime]

Originally Posted by Greatday

I don't wear glasses - colored or otherwise.

We have the FINEST health care in the world.

We may have had the finest healthcare once but not now. Are you so desperate to keep the status quo that you refuse to come into the 21st century? our health care is now ranked lower than even much poorer countries and it is much more expensive than uhc countries.
This whole thing is like the Titanic. Our health care system has hit an iceberg. The uhc is the lifeboats and the anti uhc protesters and people with health cover are the first class passengers who absolutely refuse to see that the ship is sinking.
Our health system is all but sunk. Once it has sunk these anti uhc people will be pushing the women, children young and old out of their way to get to whatever lifeboat they can climb on.

[brokensky]

Originally Posted by sindey

I won't disagree with you that Americans don't want to pay for those in the country illegally but, my daughter-in-law works for the county hospital and I can absolutly tell you they are NOT being turned away for non-life threatening issues due to lawsuits.

Federal law mandates that anyone who shows up at the ER is treated and no one can be asked about his or her citizenship status.

[NooYowkur81]

Honestly many illegals work for pennies (which by the way the country benefited from for a long time and many people looked the other way for a long time) so in a painfully ironic way their getting free health treatment is a tipping or balancing of the scales somewhat. The answer of course is that the root issues have to be addressed.

[Tambintime]

Originally Posted by anifani821

Federal law mandates that anyone who shows up at the ER is treated and no one can be asked about his or her citizenship status.

Emergency treatment only. Once the patient has stabalised the hospital has no further requirement to treat them further.

[brokensky]

Originally Posted by Greatday

I don't wear glasses - colored or otherwise.

We have the FINEST health care in the world.

I think people are not understanding what you are saying.

We do have the finest healthcare in the world. That is why healthcare practitioners from other countries are in line to come here.

Our healthcare practitioners also make more money than in any other country of the world.

Our healthcare is also the most expensive healthcare in the world. And, in many areas of the country, access to healthcare (especially specialists) is not easily obtained. However, it is still not the level of access that most countries are used to.

When I say access, let me explain.

My physician prescribed an expensive medicine. If my healthcare insurance would agree to cover it, it would cost me only a few dollars a month. But my impossible healthcare insurance carrier has decided I don't really NEED this medicine, and they have denied coverage.

The cheapest I can find the med is $128/mo. Now, if I want to pay out of pocket, I can still access it . . . but if I want to get it at a reasonable charge (wh/ is why I pay for healthcare insurance) - I am just out of luck.

This is how it is with much of our system. If your insurance provider denies coverage, you can still access the treatment/procedure/medicine - you will just have to pay out of pocket. Most folks can't afford to do that on recurring expenses or for an expensive surgical procedure.

In addition, access to healthcare can include having to drive long distances in order to see a physician or go to a hospital.

However, what we here in this country consider "unfair" or "inconvenient" is often the norm in other countries.

For example. Cities all over this country have not only one imaging center, many have two or more. There may be several MR units, many CTs, even a PET. Down the road, 50 miles, there most likely are gonna be more of these same imaging centers/equipment.

Your doc may send you to an imaging center and you may have to wait a week (for non-emergencies) but usually, you will be seen within 24-72 hours.

In other countries. there may only be one MR that serves a 250 mile radius (I don't have the regs in front of me - used to have those for the UK). Or they may base it on per capita - one MR unit per so many hundred thousand people. So when your doc needs for you to get an MRI, you may have to wait three months.

So that affects access to healthcare.

The fact that we have such high access to healthcare here also means these procedures are expensive, as our hospitals have purchased so many millions $ worth of medical equipment, and built so many imaging centers in which to house very specialized equipment.

I could go on and on but hopefully everyone understands my point.

We do have the best healthcare in the world and we also have high access to healthcare - IF WE HAVE THE MONEY OR COVERAGE TO ACCESS IT!!!

And that is what needs to change - the COST of healthcare. To do that, however, means changing the BUSINESS of the delivery of healthcare.

[brokensky]

Originally Posted by Tambintime

Emergency treatment only. Once the patient has stabalised the hospital has no further requirement to treat them further.

Neverthless, by federal mandate, no one can be turned away from any hospital ER, regardless of ability to pay and regardless of citizenship status.

[Tambintime]

Originally Posted by anifani821

Neverthless, by federal mandate, no one can be turned away from any hospital ER, regardless of ability to pay and regardless of citizenship status.

You will find this is the case in most Countries.

[rayneinspain]

Originally Posted by anifani821

Federal law mandates that anyone who shows up at the ER is treated and no one can be asked about his or her citizenship status.

Not quite. Here is the actual EMTALA provision:

2. What are the provisions of EMTALA?
The essential provisions of the statute are as follows:
Any patient who "comes to the emergency department" requesting "examination or treatment for a medical condition" must be provided with "an appropriate medical screening examination" to determine if he is suffering from an "emergency medical condition". If he is, then the hospital is obligated to either provide him with treatment until he is stable or to transfer him to another hospital in conformance with the statute's directives.

***
If the patient does not have an "emergency medical condition", the statute imposes no further obligation on the hospital.

A pregnant woman who presents in active labor must, for all practical purposes, be admitted and treated until delivery is completed, unless a transfer under the statute is appropriate. The statute explicitly provides that this must include delivery of the placenta.

In essence, then, the statute:

• imposes an affirmative obligation on the part of the hospital to provide a medical screening examination to determine whether an "emergency medical condition" exists;
• imposes restrictions on transfers of persons who exhibit an "emergency medical condition" or are in active labor, which restrictions may or may not be limited to transfers made for economic reasons;
• imposes an affirmative duty to institute treatment if an "emergency medical condition" does exist.

FAQ on EMTALA