Diane Black , a female GOP rich rep. wants to end the EMTLA

[dblack]

No. This is the same demagoguery thrown up to defend any hare-brained scheme someone comes up with. Just because we don't want to socialize medicine doesn't mean we are okay with kids dying in the street. And we don't need to meet your "demands" for an alternative solution to prove it.

Again, this is political demagoguery, nothing more. Just because someone thinks your socialist pipedream is bullshit, doesn't mean they are indifferent to suffering. Insisting that this is so only makes you are a bigot ascribing evil intent to anyone who disagrees with you.

Libertarianism at the end of the day is an excuse for selfishness.

Had a saying in the Army. "If you see something wrong and you do nothing about it, you've set a new standard!"

I agree with you concerning Libertarians. Selfish MFers.

And you're both just wanking off to your fantasies.

 

[dblack]

Nope. It's a call for liberty and mutual respect. You wouldn't understand.

I think when you let someone's kid die in the street because they don't have insurance, you aren't "respecting" them all that much.

And I'm fed up with your baseless accusations. Try to find one post where I've said we should "let 'em die", or anything remotely like it. You won't have any luck, because you're lying.

 

[JoeB131]

And I'm fed up with your baseless accusations. Try to find one post where I've said we should "let 'em die", or anything remotely like it. You won't have any luck, because you're lying.

Just because you pretend that won't be the end result, doesn't mean it won't be the end result.

 

[dblack]

And I'm fed up with your baseless accusations. Try to find one post where I've said we should "let 'em die", or anything remotely like it. You won't have any luck, because you're lying.

Just because you pretend that won't be the end result, doesn't mean it won't be the end result.

Prove it. That's what real debate and political discussion is about. If you really think that your solution is the only way to avoid children dying in the streets, make your case. It'd be a lot more persuasive than simply demonizing anyone who disagrees.

 

[JoeB131]

Prove it. That's what real debate and political discussion is about. If you really think that your solution is the only way to avoid children dying in the streets, make your case. It'd be a lot more persuasive than simply demonizing anyone who disagrees.

Prove it? All I have to do is look back at what Hospitals did before EMTALA was passed.

You know, what you Libertarians like to call "The Good Old Days when we done had us some freedom, Cleetus".

Why patients still need EMTALA

“When I started practicing in 1976, I witnessed substantial economic discrimination against patients,” said Dr. Robert Bitterman, an emergency physician and attorney who advises hospitals facing EMTALA investigations. “EMTALA largely changed the very bad behavior that was going on in the 1970s and 1980s. It still happens occasionally, but this isn't common anymore.”

The impetus for EMTALA was an epidemic of patient transfers that were widely seen as inappropriate and dangerous for patients, including pregnant women in labor being turned away from emergency rooms. Studies showed that in the early 1980s, there were about 250,000 transfers a year from private hospitals to public or Veterans Health Administration hospitals.

Nearly 90% were for economic reasons, with 24% of these patients unstable at the time of transfer. Their mortality rate was triple that of other patients. In Chicago during the 1980s, 89% of transferred patients were black or Hispanic, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.


AGAIN, THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT TO GO BACK TO.

Except it would probably be worse, given that medicine has become even more corporatized than it was 30 years ago.

 

[debbiedowner]

So by that logic, fire fighting and police work is a "service" that is bought and sold because policemen and firefighters don't work for free.

I'm sure as a rugged individualist, you think people should put out their own fires, though.

The reality, though, is we don't provide those things on people's ability to pay. We don't let a tenement of poor children burn down because a rich bitch needs someone to get her cat out of a tree.

Medical treatment should be the same thing. We take care of the poor kids with cancer, and THEN we take care of the rich-bitch's facelift, if we have any money left over.

We do buy the services of the police and firefighters.

We also buy the services of trash haulers. I lived in a city where there was on hauler. And prices were simply stupid. Someone bribed the city council to let them in and we had two. Guess what happened to prices ?

A city of a tiny town. That is why the fine needs to be endorsed for no health ins. , even raised.

Or the money could go to an HSA instead of the Federal Government.

A much better use.

You have to have a compatible health insurance plan to have an HSA.

I am no expert in this area. However, I do recall being told that my HSA is portable and that it will be with me for as long as I have money in there (even if I terminate my employment).

Next, I found this on the web. I can't vouch for it's accuracy so if you have better information, I would be grateful:

A health savings account usually supplements one's current insurance coverage, although with some HSAs you don't have to have insurance coverage.

Quick Comparison of 3 Types of Health Savings Accounts

Well, you did not clarify. If you leave your job it's yours to keep but only for medical expenses. If an individual wants to start a new HSA (nothing to do with employment) they cannot unless they have a compatible health insurance plan.

 

[Indeependent]

Like the fact that Mexico kills trespassers?
Yeah...

I'm sure that's a story you exchange at your "We hate the darkies" meetings.

You're so full of shit with almost every post.
I can't wait for you to step over the border without their permission.

 

[dblack]

Prove it. That's what real debate and political discussion is about. If you really think that your solution is the only way to avoid children dying in the streets, make your case. It'd be a lot more persuasive than simply demonizing anyone who disagrees.

Prove it? All I have to do is look back at what Hospitals did before EMTALA was passed.

You know, what you Libertarians like to call "The Good Old Days when we done had us some freedom, Cleetus".

Why patients still need EMTALA

“When I started practicing in 1976, I witnessed substantial economic discrimination against patients,” said Dr. Robert Bitterman, an emergency physician and attorney who advises hospitals facing EMTALA investigations. “EMTALA largely changed the very bad behavior that was going on in the 1970s and 1980s. It still happens occasionally, but this isn't common anymore.”

The impetus for EMTALA was an epidemic of patient transfers that were widely seen as inappropriate and dangerous for patients, including pregnant women in labor being turned away from emergency rooms. Studies showed that in the early 1980s, there were about 250,000 transfers a year from private hospitals to public or Veterans Health Administration hospitals.

Nearly 90% were for economic reasons, with 24% of these patients unstable at the time of transfer. Their mortality rate was triple that of other patients. In Chicago during the 1980s, 89% of transferred patients were black or Hispanic, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.


AGAIN, THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT TO GO BACK TO.

Except it would probably be worse, given that medicine has become even more corporatized than it was 30 years ago.

Apart from the gratuitous insults, and the occasional logical fallacy, that was at least something like an argument. Thank you.

There is no 'going back' to anything. We don't have that option. We can only go forward.

I don't have a real beef with EMTALA. I think it's mostly insignificant when compared to the other inflationary pressures on the health care market. It does transfer some cost, via the unfunded mandate, but I don't think we'd gain much in repealing it.

I just get a kick out of watching the very people who insist that we have stupid laws like EMTALA in the first place, bitching about the cost transfers. Cost transfers are the point of unfunded mandates. It's like you're arguing with yourself.

 

[MadChemist]

We do buy the services of the police and firefighters.

We also buy the services of trash haulers. I lived in a city where there was on hauler. And prices were simply stupid. Someone bribed the city council to let them in and we had two. Guess what happened to prices ?

A city of a tiny town. That is why the fine needs to be endorsed for no health ins. , even raised.

Or the money could go to an HSA instead of the Federal Government.

A much better use.

You have to have a compatible health insurance plan to have an HSA.

I am no expert in this area. However, I do recall being told that my HSA is portable and that it will be with me for as long as I have money in there (even if I terminate my employment).

Next, I found this on the web. I can't vouch for it's accuracy so if you have better information, I would be grateful:

A health savings account usually supplements one's current insurance coverage, although with some HSAs you don't have to have insurance coverage.

Quick Comparison of 3 Types of Health Savings Accounts

Well, you did not clarify. If you leave your job it's yours to keep but only for medical expenses. If an individual wants to start a new HSA (nothing to do with employment) they cannot unless they have a compatible health insurance plan.

I believe the article I quoted indicates you don't have to have insurance coverage.

 

[MadChemist]

Like the fact that Mexico kills trespassers?
Yeah...

I'm sure that's a story you exchange at your "We hate the darkies" meetings.

You're so full of shit with almost every post.

Harsh.

But true.

There is no argument unless you count pulling the wafting ideas of the intellectuals out of the sky and calling them "facts".

 

[JoeB131]

There is no 'going back' to anything. We don't have that option. We can only go forward.

I don't have a real beef with EMTALA. I think it's mostly insignificant when compared to the other inflationary pressures on the health care market. It does transfer some cost, via the unfunded mandate, but I don't think we'd gain much in repealing it.

I just get a kick out of watching the very people who insist that we have stupid laws like EMTALA in the first place, bitching about the cost transfers. Cost transfers are the point of unfunded mandates. It's like you're arguing with yourself.

Oh, quit trying to weasel your way out of it.

EMTALA is the result of not passing single payer in the 1970's when we should have. And, yes, the total of uncompensated care is 40 Billion a year, about 6% of total hospital expenses. But that's just where it starts, because when you add on the costs of collection agencies and bankruptcies, it just gets higher.

Who pays when someone without insurance shows up in the ER?

 

[debbiedowner]

A city of a tiny town. That is why the fine needs to be endorsed for no health ins. , even raised.

Or the money could go to an HSA instead of the Federal Government.

A much better use.

You have to have a compatible health insurance plan to have an HSA.

I am no expert in this area. However, I do recall being told that my HSA is portable and that it will be with me for as long as I have money in there (even if I terminate my employment).

Next, I found this on the web. I can't vouch for it's accuracy so if you have better information, I would be grateful:

A health savings account usually supplements one's current insurance coverage, although with some HSAs you don't have to have insurance coverage.

Quick Comparison of 3 Types of Health Savings Accounts

Well, you did not clarify. If you leave your job it's yours to keep but only for medical expenses. If an individual wants to start a new HSA (nothing to do with employment) they cannot unless they have a compatible health insurance plan.

I believe the article I quoted indicates you don't have to have insurance coverage.

https://www.depauw.edu/files/resources/hsa-communication-series.pdf

 

[MadChemist]

Nope. It's a call for liberty and mutual respect. You wouldn't understand.

I think when you let someone's kid die in the street because they don't have insurance, you aren't "respecting" them all that much.

And I'm fed up with your baseless accusations. Try to find one post where I've said we should "let 'em die", or anything remotely like it. You won't have any luck, because you're lying.

Why should facts get in the way of an emotional lie.

Truth is not the objective of zealots.

 

[MadChemist]

Or the money could go to an HSA instead of the Federal Government.

A much better use.

You have to have a compatible health insurance plan to have an HSA.

I am no expert in this area. However, I do recall being told that my HSA is portable and that it will be with me for as long as I have money in there (even if I terminate my employment).

Next, I found this on the web. I can't vouch for it's accuracy so if you have better information, I would be grateful:

A health savings account usually supplements one's current insurance coverage, although with some HSAs you don't have to have insurance coverage.

Quick Comparison of 3 Types of Health Savings Accounts

Well, you did not clarify. If you leave your job it's yours to keep but only for medical expenses. If an individual wants to start a new HSA (nothing to do with employment) they cannot unless they have a compatible health insurance plan.

I believe the article I quoted indicates you don't have to have insurance coverage.

https://www.depauw.edu/files/resources/hsa-communication-series.pdf

Although from 2012, I can't find much that does not repeat the same thing. In rereading my article it does make the claim I quoted...but says nothing ore (and later on does say for an HSA you need an insurance program.....not sure what they were referencing).

Thanks for the clarrification.

 

[dblack]

There is no 'going back' to anything. We don't have that option. We can only go forward.

I don't have a real beef with EMTALA. I think it's mostly insignificant when compared to the other inflationary pressures on the health care market. It does transfer some cost, via the unfunded mandate, but I don't think we'd gain much in repealing it.

I just get a kick out of watching the very people who insist that we have stupid laws like EMTALA in the first place, bitching about the cost transfers. Cost transfers are the point of unfunded mandates. It's like you're arguing with yourself.

Oh, quit trying to weasel your way out of it.

EMTALA is the result of not passing single payer in the 1970's when we should have. And, yes, the total of uncompensated care is 40 Billion a year, about 6% of total hospital expenses. But that's just where it starts, because when you add on the costs of collection agencies and bankruptcies, it just gets higher.

Who pays when someone without insurance shows up in the ER?

All we have to do to resolve the cost shifting of EMTALA is fund it. Raise tax revenues to match the 40 billion a year and compensate the hospitals for the care. I wonder what the excuses are for not doing the obvious.

 

[anotherlife]

There is no 'going back' to anything. We don't have that option. We can only go forward.

I don't have a real beef with EMTALA. I think it's mostly insignificant when compared to the other inflationary pressures on the health care market. It does transfer some cost, via the unfunded mandate, but I don't think we'd gain much in repealing it.

I just get a kick out of watching the very people who insist that we have stupid laws like EMTALA in the first place, bitching about the cost transfers. Cost transfers are the point of unfunded mandates. It's like you're arguing with yourself.

Oh, quit trying to weasel your way out of it.

EMTALA is the result of not passing single payer in the 1970's when we should have. And, yes, the total of uncompensated care is 40 Billion a year, about 6% of total hospital expenses. But that's just where it starts, because when you add on the costs of collection agencies and bankruptcies, it just gets higher.

Who pays when someone without insurance shows up in the ER?

All we have to do to resolve the cost shifting of EMTALA is fund it. Raise tax revenues to match the 40 billion a year and compensate the hospitals for the care. I wonder what the excuses are for not doing the obvious.

This is exactly the problem with the socialist. They don't pay taxes so they are quick to raise tax revenue, from the pockets of those who work. Very unethical.

 

[dblack]

There is no 'going back' to anything. We don't have that option. We can only go forward.

I don't have a real beef with EMTALA. I think it's mostly insignificant when compared to the other inflationary pressures on the health care market. It does transfer some cost, via the unfunded mandate, but I don't think we'd gain much in repealing it.

I just get a kick out of watching the very people who insist that we have stupid laws like EMTALA in the first place, bitching about the cost transfers. Cost transfers are the point of unfunded mandates. It's like you're arguing with yourself.

Oh, quit trying to weasel your way out of it.

EMTALA is the result of not passing single payer in the 1970's when we should have. And, yes, the total of uncompensated care is 40 Billion a year, about 6% of total hospital expenses. But that's just where it starts, because when you add on the costs of collection agencies and bankruptcies, it just gets higher.

Who pays when someone without insurance shows up in the ER?

All we have to do to resolve the cost shifting of EMTALA is fund it. Raise tax revenues to match the 40 billion a year and compensate the hospitals for the care. I wonder what the excuses are for not doing the obvious.

This is exactly the problem with the socialist. They don't pay taxes so they are quick to raise tax revenue, from the pockets of those who work. Very unethical.

Sure, but at least it would be a fully informed decision. As it is, Congress hides the real cost of its programs by making others pay for them. Unfunded mandates are a blatant abuse of government power.

 

[JoeB131]

All we have to do to resolve the cost shifting of EMTALA is fund it. Raise tax revenues to match the 40 billion a year and compensate the hospitals for the care. I wonder what the excuses are for not doing the obvious.

Rich people need tax cuts?

Seriously, the thing is, if you do that, then you are going to be amazed how fast that $40 B will go up as Hospital Corporations say, "Hey, there's a bag full of money to go after".

Again- why you need single payer, because you need someone to control these costs through national policy, not how Big Health, Big Insurance and Big Pharma can scam the system.

 

[debbiedowner]

You have to have a compatible health insurance plan to have an HSA.

I am no expert in this area. However, I do recall being told that my HSA is portable and that it will be with me for as long as I have money in there (even if I terminate my employment).

Next, I found this on the web. I can't vouch for it's accuracy so if you have better information, I would be grateful:

A health savings account usually supplements one's current insurance coverage, although with some HSAs you don't have to have insurance coverage.

Quick Comparison of 3 Types of Health Savings Accounts

Well, you did not clarify. If you leave your job it's yours to keep but only for medical expenses. If an individual wants to start a new HSA (nothing to do with employment) they cannot unless they have a compatible health insurance plan.

I believe the article I quoted indicates you don't have to have insurance coverage.

https://www.depauw.edu/files/resources/hsa-communication-series.pdf

Although from 2012, I can't find much that does not repeat the same thing. In rereading my article it does make the claim I quoted...but says nothing ore (and later on does say for an HSA you need an insurance program.....not sure what they were referencing).

Thanks for the clarrification.

Although you can take your employer HSA with you unless you get a compatible plan afterwards you cannot continue to contribute, but you can use or deplete it for medical expenses.

 

[dblack]

All we have to do to resolve the cost shifting of EMTALA is fund it. Raise tax revenues to match the 40 billion a year and compensate the hospitals for the care. I wonder what the excuses are for not doing the obvious.

Rich people need tax cuts?

??? No. What are you getting at?

Seriously, the thing is, if you do that, then you are going to be amazed how fast that $40 B will go up as Hospital Corporations say, "Hey, there's a bag full of money to go after".

Again- why you need single payer, because you need someone to control these costs through national policy, not how Big Health, Big Insurance and Big Pharma can scam the system.

Single payer would be no different than Medicare. It would all be farmed out to private insurance companies anyway.. The only difference is that government will be buying our insurance for us, with our tax money. And we'll have precious little say in the matter.