Defending the Truth

This is the most up-to-date I can find, I have heard major numbers, can't remember!

US Census Press Releases

Let us not confuse apples and oranges in this debate. The debate is about health insurance coverage, not health care. Federal law requires that no hospital turn away any individual needing care regardless of their ability to pay. So, no one in this country is without healthcare.

Now insurance is a different story. Premiums for insurance have increased over the years as the cost of healthcare has increased. So how do we correct this problem. First, we must identify why costs have increased. One of the major problems is the fact that many people who have medical coverage in which they have low co-pays, i.e. medicaid/medicare and other government sponsored programs, continue to abuse the system. Since these individuals will pay only a $3.00 copay instead of waiting to make an appointment with their primary care physician, they will use the emergency room for non emergency complaints, i.e. my knee hurts, I have a sore throat, I have a cough, I have diarrhea, etc. An individual with health insurance will pay on average a $100 co-pay for using the emergency room and a $25 co-pay for going to the doctors office, these individuals tend to go to the doctors. Now, since those who pay the $3.00 use the emergency room for non-emergency illnesses, the hospital must be able to make up for the loss of revenue, so in turn they increase the cost of care.

The solution is an easy fix, increase the copay for medicaid/medicare and other government sponsored program for using the emergency room. Under the current system their copay is the same regardless, instead the government program should mimic the private industry, charging an increased co-pay for the emergency room. By doing this, the misuse of the emergency room will decrease, and in turn, the hospitals will have no need to increase costs to cover revenue expenditures.

Second, the lack of available coverage to small businesses. Large companies are able to provide insurance to their members at lower costs due to the simple fact that by having more people they can lower the costs, small businesses are at a disadvantage. The President has already announced a program to help in this regards, allowing small businesses to band together to get coverage for their employees. Increasing the number of policies will decrease the costs of the premiums. A simple case of supply and demand. This is a program that will help to provide coverage to some 20 million of the currently uninsured. One simple reform and we can eliminate almost half of all those who are uninsured.

Third, there are some 8.3 million children who do not have health insurance, however, every state in the union provides health coverage for children and it is even covered under medicaid. Taking this into consideration, this reduces our total of uncovered to 19 million.

Fourth, the largest group of individuals without insurance is those who are 18 - 24 years of age. Now the question is why is this? Could it be that these individuals choose not to pay premiums because they feel it is unnecessary??? Truthfully, if you are young, unmarried and do not have children, do you consider the need for health insurance, or is this a bill you choose not to incur? Before we make a statement that there are 47 million people without coverage, should we not first determine how many without coverage are so because of choice. A young, unmarried person without children are also unlikely to have life insurance. Could it be that these individuals do not feel they need this coverage. Perhaps they feel that they will not get sick or will not need coverage, and choose not to enroll. I work with several individuals who are in this category, and none of them enroll in the coverage provided by our employer because they do not feel the need to have the coverage. How many people will this take off the rolls? 10 million or more most likely. Hmmm three simple steps and already I have shown how we can reduce the number of the uncovered to under 10%.

Now government sponsored coverage, just simple common sense solutions. Being a veteran I have seen the results of government sponsored healthcare. If you thought the rules and regulations of the HMOs were bad, wait until the government gets involved, six months for a routing appointment, a year wait for an MRI.

If government sets the price for healthcare, which is what they will do if the nationalize the system, problems will arise. Why do you think that the United States has the state of the art systems we have??? We have lead the world in new treatments, new drugs and new technology in the medical field, exactly because we have a private system.

dmk

Well stated, Sarge.

Unfortunately, those pushing for socialized health-care are not listening...

Of course they are not listening, the hopes of a government fix are a utopian desire for many. First it is healthcare that is a right, next it will be housing, and then food, and before long whatelse. Ultimately all roads lead to the same thing, people demanding as rights services provided for them by others. What happens when the providers tire of being slaves and quit.

John Galt will have stopped the motor of the world.

dmk

My employer does not offer $1 of any benefits of any kind. I am paid "x-amount" per year, and have to provide all my own insurance and retirement.

It is no more and no less than me having to be disciplined enough to do it.

So why not have all the liberals on this forum come cry me a river!?!?!?

So, I was reading through this thread and appreciate the value of this discussion. However, I felt compelled to make this point.

Emergency Medical Treatment IS NOT Healthcare

Before you call me an idiot consider these two situations.

Entering an emergency room with a life endangering injury. I will receive a medical screening and appropriate stabilizing treatment. Meaning I will be treated until my life is no longer in danger because of my injuries.

Entering an emergency room because I have Diabetes and attempting to get ongoing treatment. I will receive a medical screening to determine if my life is in danger because of my condition but nothing will be done to provide ongoing healthcare.

Notice the distinction here.

See: EMTALA/EMTALA Resources for hospitals

The EMTALA(Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) is in place to provide critical stabilizing treatment. After a patient is stabilized they are released. Healthcare is encompassing of Emergency Medical Treatment and ongoing treatment.

I guess if you consider going to the hospital without insurance only when you are about to die healthcare then yes everyone has healthcare. If you consider all of the treatments that a hospital is not obligated to provide because your life is not in jeopardy then this is not preventative and therefore not health care but emergency care. It is emergency care that everyone is entitled to via EMTALA. It basically means that a hospital can't just watch you die because you can't pay.

EMTALA only guarantees to everyone to be medically assessed to determine if you are in an immediate life threatening condition and if so you will be treated regardless of your ability to pay.

I am not saying socialized or privatized healthcare is the way to go. I just wanted to help clear the mud a little so that the discussion can continue.


Jefferson: I am not a liberal but I do feel for you. I would look for another job unless your basic salary was inflated to include your cost of the benefits.

First of all, do NOT feel sorry for me. I am free do "do my own thing" concerning every aspect of my life. There's no reason to pity that, because that is EXACTLY what America is supposed to be about.

Now... consider this: A good friend of mine, who is 28, went to the hospital earlier this week because he was in severe pain.

He was taken there by ambulance.
He has been in the hospital since Monday.
He has blood clots in both lungs - a very serious condition.
He is receiving full medical care.

He has no health insurance.

How is this possible? All the "pro-socialized health-care" fanatics say this isn't possible. They say this doesn't happen. They say that this guy would be left to die on the streets. But it's all a lie.

The treatment is inline with what I said before. Your friend is receiving treatment for an immediate life threatening condition. He could be starved of oxygen and die. As you said that is a very serious condition.

However, if the condition was not immediately life threatening but required ongoing healthcare would your friend still be receiving that required ongoing healthcare from that hospital for say early signs of lung cancer in which his life was not in immediate danger? Would your friend have recieved an annual physical from the hospital that may have detected the formation of the clots had the examination been in chronological proximity to the time he started experiencing pain?

EMTALA doesn't guarantee that. It only guarantees a medical screening and stabilizing treatment. If the hospital chooses to continue treatment after performing those required services then that is a great hospital, but as for the previous posts we were talking about legal requirments and posted policies in hospitals.

I only said I feel for you because you seemed disgruntled with your situation. If that is not the case then rock on wit ya bad self.

It's not all a lie. Some is a lie but it is some on both sides of the fence. There are rarely absolutes on subjects such as these.

1. Yes, my friend IS receiving treatment for his life-threatening sickness. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HEALTH-CARE IS.

2. He'd probably receive better health-care, and on-going treatment, then a lot of people with private health insurance. You do realize, don't you, that most "release dates" from the hospital are determined more by insurance, then by the patient's health?

3. Funny. I'm probably about the LEAST disgruntled person here. In fact, there is absolutely nothing about my life that I'm unhappy about. I'm happily married - for almost 25-years - to a beautiful, extremely intelligent and capable woman. 2 of our 3 kids are grown, and the 3rd one almost is. We're prefectly content with our jobs, our city, our home and our family. All is well here.


I hope you're enjoying life a fraction as much as I am.

When talking about non life threatening conditions yes. People with healthcare have discharge dates that are influenced by their insurance.

When talking about immediate life threatening conditions discharge date is guided by acheiving stability in the patients condition.

Your friend is receiving Emergency/Urgent care. If his care were to stop there is a possibility he could die, hence the emergency and the hospital's responsibility to act.

Healthcare is inclusive of all aspects of Emergency/Urgent care.

Emergency/Urgent care is not inclusive of all aspects of Healthcare.

So to say that by going to Emergency Room you will be guaranteed Healthcare is false. You are guaranteed Emergency/Urgent care as required by law.

Once your friend is better will he be following up for the next year with the Emergency room to monitor his blood tests and maintain his anticouagulant medicine or will the hospital tell him that he needs to see a primary healthcare physician to perform those tasks. That is the difference between Emergency/Urgent care and Healthcare. Healthcare can and usually is ongoing. Emergency rooms do not provide ongoing treatment after stabilization/removal of the threat of dying or severe trauma.

Healthcare defintion from msn.com

health·care

noun
Definition: activities to maintain health: the provision of medical and related services aimed at maintaining good health, especially through the prevention and treatment of disease

Definition of Emergency Medicine

e·mer·gen·cy med·i·cine

noun
Definition: medical specialty dealing with immediate treatment: the branch of medicine dealing with the treatment of patients whose condition requires immediate action

So in order to receive Healthcare at an emergency room you must be able to go there and receive services aimed at maintaining good health, and providing preventative treatment. Emergency rooms don't provide this service.

Congratulations on your happiness I hope my wife and I are together for 25 years. I hope you were sincere in your wishes and I'll take it as such. Thank you for your blessing.