30 year old decides not to buy health insurance

[Truthmatters]

NINH
NO insurance no hospital.

It was a bad business decision on the hospitals part to take him in?

People who say stuff like that are completely ignorant of how healthcare works. I don't claim to be an expert at all, but I do at least know it's federal law that you have to treat patients.

Overturn EMTALA and federal mandates and this becomes a different discussion. But, at this point, the hospital has no choice but to treat them.

(Not that I have a problem with that, just pointing out how clueless some people are).

I think you misunderstand what he was saying

 

[Seawytch]

There is plenty of room for profit in a single payer, universal health care system. Everyone gets the same basic service, which includes regular check ups and wellness screenings plus you can purchase supplemental coverage if you want more.

 

[percysunshine]

NINH
NO insurance no hospital.

It was a bad business decision on the hospitals part to take him in?

People who say stuff like that are completely ignorant of how healthcare works. I don't claim to be an expert at all, but I do at least know it's federal law that you have to treat patients.

Overturn EMTALA and federal mandates and this becomes a different discussion. But, at this point, the hospital has no choice but to treat them.

(Not that I have a problem with that, just pointing out how clueless some people are).

I think you misunderstand what he was saying

So you have taken the Hippocratic Oath?

Wow!

 

[geauxtohell]

NINH
NO insurance no hospital.

It was a bad business decision on the hospitals part to take him in?

People who say stuff like that are completely ignorant of how healthcare works. I don't claim to be an expert at all, but I do at least know it's federal law that you have to treat patients.

Overturn EMTALA and federal mandates and this becomes a different discussion. But, at this point, the hospital has no choice but to treat them.

(Not that I have a problem with that, just pointing out how clueless some people are).

I think you misunderstand what he was saying

I know it was a rhetorical question. I am making the point that "no insurance, no hospital" is against federal law.

 

[geauxtohell]

People who say stuff like that are completely ignorant of how healthcare works. I don't claim to be an expert at all, but I do at least know it's federal law that you have to treat patients.

Overturn EMTALA and federal mandates and this becomes a different discussion. But, at this point, the hospital has no choice but to treat them.

(Not that I have a problem with that, just pointing out how clueless some people are).

I think you misunderstand what he was saying

So you have taken the Hippocratic Oath?

Wow!

Which, as a non-legally binding entity, means nothing in this debate.

 

[Care4all]

The Hippocratic Oath is taken by professional doctors.

Why they named it after an over weight land mammal is beyond me.

Hippocrates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Full-Auto]

And it is for people like you that I make this post.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4154020-post49.html

Your premiums are jacked because some people are not paying anything. They are not all bad actors either. Staying in the hospital for 3-4 days starts to rack up debt into the tens of thousands.

The hospitals can't "dump" or refuse to care for patient's because of federal EMTALA laws.

So people like you are stuck in the middle.

And hilariously fight tooth and nail against any sort of reform while bitching that your premiums are going up.

BTW, guess who wins with Tort Reform? I'll give you a hint: It's not the patients, the rest of the policy holders, or the doctors.

My premiums were jacked because of namby pamby cry babies that think insurance should cover all of their wants. This brand of insurance is not allowed to act like insurance. I insure against accidents not for subsidizing an office visit.................

Apparently it does. What, did you think you were going to be immune from the cost of treating the whole group of insured patients under your plan when you threw your money in the kitty?

How do you think insurance works? Might as well do some preventative care and get your money's worth.

At any rate, your complaint is specific to your provider. Not the nation at large.

Lets stop right there...............

Define MY PLAN>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I am all ears....................

 

[percysunshine]

I think you misunderstand what he was saying

So you have taken the Hippocratic Oath?

Wow!

Which, as a non-legally binding entity, means nothing in this debate.

It means everything in this debate. When a President or a Congress member, or a Judge takes an 'Oath', it means nothing?

Come on.

 

[geauxtohell]

My premiums were jacked because of namby pamby cry babies that think insurance should cover all of their wants. This brand of insurance is not allowed to act like insurance. I insure against accidents not for subsidizing an office visit.................

Apparently it does. What, did you think you were going to be immune from the cost of treating the whole group of insured patients under your plan when you threw your money in the kitty?

How do you think insurance works? Might as well do some preventative care and get your money's worth.

At any rate, your complaint is specific to your provider. Not the nation at large.

Lets stop right there...............

Define MY PLAN>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I am all ears....................

I can only go off of what you tell us. As you are being somewhat vague (even refusing to list the vendor), I am only left to infer.

If you want to tell us what your plan consists of, the go for it.

 

[dblack]

My premiums were jacked because of namby pamby cry babies that think insurance should cover all of their wants. This brand of insurance is not allowed to act like insurance. I insure against accidents not for subsidizing an office visit.................

Apparently it does. What, did you think you were going to be immune from the cost of treating the whole group of insured patients under your plan when you threw your money in the kitty?

How do you think insurance works? Might as well do some preventative care and get your money's worth.

At any rate, your complaint is specific to your provider. Not the nation at large.

I think you've missed Full Auto's point here. What he's complaining about is the regulatory and tax constraints that push insurance toward a low-deductible, high-premium standard. Many of us see high-deductible, low-premium (catastrophic coverage) as a more cost-effective way of using insurance. If we got back to using insurance as insurance, instead of as a really expensive credit card for any health needs, we could restore sanity to the health care market and provide the downward price pressure that is masked under the current arrangement.

 

[geauxtohell]

So you have taken the Hippocratic Oath?

Wow!

Which, as a non-legally binding entity, means nothing in this debate.

It means everything in this debate. When a President or a Congress member, or a Judge takes an 'Oath', it means nothing?

Come on.

Yes. The Hippocratic Oath means nothing in this debate as it is a non-legally binding entity that basically serves as window dressing for Medical School White Coat Ceremonies:

Here is the original HO

I swear by Apollo the Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods, and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art—if they desire to learn it—without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken the oath according to medical law, but to no one else.

I will apply dietic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep myself holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honoured with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

The "enforcement" body behind the oath (the persons who would prosecute the persons in the Hippocratic Guild who violated it) is relegated to Greek polytheism. Specifically, Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea.

The Oath also prohibits surgery and teaching medicine to those outside the guild (as well as having sex with patient's slaves).

To further bolster the notion, no one is required to take the Oath. It's basically seen as some nice "feel-goody" sentiments that are only proximately relevant to the practice of medicine today.

It has no legal authority. No one in this country has ever been prosecuted for violating the Hippocratic Oath, and thus, it has absolutely no bearing on the debate in this country.

The modern HO has basically been watered down and is different. I guess some people didn't want to swear to Apollo or something.....

 

[geauxtohell]

My premiums were jacked because of namby pamby cry babies that think insurance should cover all of their wants. This brand of insurance is not allowed to act like insurance. I insure against accidents not for subsidizing an office visit.................

Apparently it does. What, did you think you were going to be immune from the cost of treating the whole group of insured patients under your plan when you threw your money in the kitty?

How do you think insurance works? Might as well do some preventative care and get your money's worth.

At any rate, your complaint is specific to your provider. Not the nation at large.

I think you've missed Full Auto's point here. What he's complaining about is the regulatory and tax constraints that push insurance toward a low-deductible, high-premium standard. Many of us see high-deductible, low-premium (catastrophic coverage) as a more cost-effective way of using insurance. If we got back to using insurance as insurance, instead of as a really expensive credit card for any health needs, we could restore sanity to the health care market and provide the downward price pressure that is masked under the current arrangement.

I guess I did miss that.

So, basically reserve it for catastrophic medical events?

 

[Full-Auto]

Apparently it does. What, did you think you were going to be immune from the cost of treating the whole group of insured patients under your plan when you threw your money in the kitty?

How do you think insurance works? Might as well do some preventative care and get your money's worth.

At any rate, your complaint is specific to your provider. Not the nation at large.

Lets stop right there...............

Define MY PLAN>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I am all ears....................

I can only go off of what you tell us. As you are being somewhat vague (even refusing to list the vendor), I am only left to infer.

If you want to tell us what your plan consists of, the go for it.

Vendor? I have bluecross through the Master Builders Association.

 

[Truthmatters]

People who say stuff like that are completely ignorant of how healthcare works. I don't claim to be an expert at all, but I do at least know it's federal law that you have to treat patients.

Overturn EMTALA and federal mandates and this becomes a different discussion. But, at this point, the hospital has no choice but to treat them.

(Not that I have a problem with that, just pointing out how clueless some people are).

I think you misunderstand what he was saying

I know it was a rhetorical question. I am making the point that "no insurance, no hospital" is against federal law.

As it should be

 

[percysunshine]

Which, as a non-legally binding entity, means nothing in this debate.

It means everything in this debate. When a President or a Congress member, or a Judge takes an 'Oath', it means nothing?

Come on.

Yes. The Hippocratic Oath means nothing in this debate as it is a non-legally binding entity that basically serves as window dressing for Medical School White Coat Ceremonies:

Here is the original HO

I swear by Apollo the Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods, and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art—if they desire to learn it—without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken the oath according to medical law, but to no one else.

I will apply dietic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep myself holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honoured with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

The "enforcement" body behind the oath (the persons who would prosecute the persons in the Hippocratic Guild who violated it) is relegated to Greek polytheism. Specifically, Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea.

The Oath also prohibits surgery and teaching medicine to those outside the guild (as well as having sex with patient's slaves).

To further bolster the notion, no one is required to take the Oath. It's basically seen as some nice "feel-goody" sentiments that are only proximately relevant to the practice of medicine today.

It has no legal authority. No one in this country has ever been prosecuted for violating the Hippocratic Oath, and thus, it has absolutely no bearing on the debate in this country.

The modern HO has basically been watered down and is different. I guess some people didn't want to swear to Apollo or something.....

Except that there is the argument in the debate that society as a whole should be subject to the oath, not just doctors.

It is the debate.

 

[geauxtohell]

Lets stop right there...............

Define MY PLAN>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I am all ears....................

I can only go off of what you tell us. As you are being somewhat vague (even refusing to list the vendor), I am only left to infer.

If you want to tell us what your plan consists of, the go for it.

Vendor? I have bluecross through the Master Builders Association.

So, as I understand it, you think Healthcare should be reserved for catastrophic care and not regular office visits?

 

[geauxtohell]

I think you misunderstand what he was saying

I know it was a rhetorical question. I am making the point that "no insurance, no hospital" is against federal law.

As it should be

I agree.

 

[jillian]

That 30 year old who decides not to buy health insurance ends up needing 6-months of hospitalization. Who should pay?

did the 30 year old decide not to buy health insurance because he or she wanted to be able to afford food or rent? or feed his/her children?

or was the 30 year old a tea loon who purposely refused to buy health insurance to "show the lefties" who was boss?

 

[Greenbeard]

Overturn EMTALA and federal mandates and this becomes a different discussion. But, at this point, the hospital has no choice but to treat them.

I've found myself wondering lately if the Republican FY12 budget passed in April does exactly that. EMTALA applies only to "participating hospitals," i.e. hospitals that file provider agreements with HHS agreeing to accept reimbursements from CMS for Medicare patients. That is, hospitals that agree to be part of the provider network for Medicare-the-insurer are also agreeing to the EMTALA requirements that require their emergency departments to stabilize patients without regard for ability to pay. And, indeed, part of the way they recoup loses from that is through DSH adjustments baked into Medicare reimbursements.

But the Republican budget would take the feds out of the insurance business: Medicare-as-insurer would eventually cease to exist and thus it wouldn't have a provider network (and thus no leverage by which to require hospitals to agree to EMTALA).

Granted, it wouldn't happen overnight. Their budget doesn't closing up shop at Medicare for a decade, and even then it still directly pays providers for its grandfathered-in population until they gradually die or opt out (although as the pool of Medicare beneficiaries shrinks, its provider network may well start shrinking).

So it's not really that far-fetched to consider what happens in a post-EMTALA world, given that a major political party is now on record supporting its elimination.

 

[geauxtohell]

It means everything in this debate. When a President or a Congress member, or a Judge takes an 'Oath', it means nothing?

Come on.

Yes. The Hippocratic Oath means nothing in this debate as it is a non-legally binding entity that basically serves as window dressing for Medical School White Coat Ceremonies:

Here is the original HO

I swear by Apollo the Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods, and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art—if they desire to learn it—without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken the oath according to medical law, but to no one else.

I will apply dietic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep myself holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honoured with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

The "enforcement" body behind the oath (the persons who would prosecute the persons in the Hippocratic Guild who violated it) is relegated to Greek polytheism. Specifically, Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea.

The Oath also prohibits surgery and teaching medicine to those outside the guild (as well as having sex with patient's slaves).

To further bolster the notion, no one is required to take the Oath. It's basically seen as some nice "feel-goody" sentiments that are only proximately relevant to the practice of medicine today.

It has no legal authority. No one in this country has ever been prosecuted for violating the Hippocratic Oath, and thus, it has absolutely no bearing on the debate in this country.

The modern HO has basically been watered down and is different. I guess some people didn't want to swear to Apollo or something.....

Except that there is the argument in the debate that society as a whole should be subject to the oath, not just doctors.

It is the debate.

LMAO! Where did you get that? I haven't seen anyone in healthcare that pays much attention to the HO. It's one of those things that is never mentioned after you go through the ceremony. Now, you'll hear about HIPAA and EMTALA until you are blue in the face, but the HO?

I don't think you are grasping the notion of just how superficial the HO is. As I noted, some medical schools don't even use it and no medical student is required to swear by it (as it could violate their beliefs).

It means zilch. Everyone can get behind the notion of doing your best for your patients, which is in the HO (basically) but as some sort of all encompassing and enforcing bond?

That's simply not the case. Sorry.