question for liberals

[elvis]

What hospitals are not allowed to refuse care?

the one my wife works at for one.

There's no law that says hospitals must provide treatment for everyone.

I'll get back to you on that.

 

[Emma]

the one my wife works at for one.

There's no law that says hospitals must provide treatment for everyone.

I'll get back to you on that.

If you're thinking of EMTALA, that doesn't require hospitals treat everyone.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act is a statute which governs when and how a patient may be (1) refused treatment or (2) transferred from one hospital to another when he is in an unstable medical condition.



EMTALA is also known as Section 1867(a) of the Social Security Act. It is included as part of the section of the U.S. Code which governs Medicare.

EMTALA applies only to "participating hospitals" -- i.e., to hospitals which have entered into "provider agreements" under which they will accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program for services provided to beneficiaries of that program. In practical terms, this means that it applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S., with the exception of the Shriners' Hospital for Crippled Children and many military hospitals. Its provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients. (See Section 15 below.)

The avowed purpose of the statute is to prevent hospitals from rejecting patients, refusing to treat them, or transferring them to "charity hospitals" or "county hospitals" because they are unable to pay or are covered under the Medicare or Medicaid programs. This purpose, however, does not limit the coverage of its provisions -- see Sections 15 and 16 below.


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.


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.

The 2003 regulations define a "dedicated emergency department" as a state-licensed ER or a place where medical services are provided on an urgent basis, without the need for an appointment, including (significantly) hospital-based ambulatory care centers. At a DED, any request for medical treatment triggers EMTALA obligations. See paragraph 14 below for a discussion of presentations elsewhere.

The 2003 regulations permit an abbreviated assessment by a qualified medical person for patients not presenting for examination or treatment, whose presentation is not likely to involve an emergency medical condition.

Under the 2003 regulations, a person presenting for the dispensation of medications at his physician's direction does trigger EMTALA obligations, because he may have a medical condition which needs evaluation. A person being brought in by law enforcement personnel for blood alcohol testing may or may not trigger the obligation, depending on the circumstances.



An attempt is made by the statute to provide a definition, but as usually happens, the legal definition leaves much to be desired. The determination is ultimately a medical one rather than a legal one. That is not to say that it is sheltered from review. As is the case with any medical decision, it must often be made quickly, with such information as is available, and is subject to critical retrospective review by physicians testifying as expert witnesses in the alien setting of the courtroom, in the event of litigation.

The definition provided under the statute is:

"A medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in:

placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,
serious impairment to bodily functions, or
serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part, or


"With respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions --
that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or
that the transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or her unborn child."

The only obligation is that the hospital evaluate the person to determine if an emergency condition exists. If one does, they are only obligated to treat until the person is "stable" or to transfer to another facility. If one does not, they are under no obligation to treat.


FAQ on EMTALA

 

[elvis]

There's no law that says hospitals must provide treatment for everyone.

I'll get back to you on that.

If you're thinking of EMTALA, that doesn't require hospitals treat everyone.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act is a statute which governs when and how a patient may be (1) refused treatment or (2) transferred from one hospital to another when he is in an unstable medical condition.



EMTALA is also known as Section 1867(a) of the Social Security Act. It is included as part of the section of the U.S. Code which governs Medicare.

EMTALA applies only to "participating hospitals" -- i.e., to hospitals which have entered into "provider agreements" under which they will accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program for services provided to beneficiaries of that program. In practical terms, this means that it applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S., with the exception of the Shriners' Hospital for Crippled Children and many military hospitals. Its provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients. (See Section 15 below.)

The avowed purpose of the statute is to prevent hospitals from rejecting patients, refusing to treat them, or transferring them to "charity hospitals" or "county hospitals" because they are unable to pay or are covered under the Medicare or Medicaid programs. This purpose, however, does not limit the coverage of its provisions -- see Sections 15 and 16 below.


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.


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.

The 2003 regulations define a "dedicated emergency department" as a state-licensed ER or a place where medical services are provided on an urgent basis, without the need for an appointment, including (significantly) hospital-based ambulatory care centers. At a DED, any request for medical treatment triggers EMTALA obligations. See paragraph 14 below for a discussion of presentations elsewhere.

The 2003 regulations permit an abbreviated assessment by a qualified medical person for patients not presenting for examination or treatment, whose presentation is not likely to involve an emergency medical condition.

Under the 2003 regulations, a person presenting for the dispensation of medications at his physician's direction does trigger EMTALA obligations, because he may have a medical condition which needs evaluation. A person being brought in by law enforcement personnel for blood alcohol testing may or may not trigger the obligation, depending on the circumstances.



An attempt is made by the statute to provide a definition, but as usually happens, the legal definition leaves much to be desired. The determination is ultimately a medical one rather than a legal one. That is not to say that it is sheltered from review. As is the case with any medical decision, it must often be made quickly, with such information as is available, and is subject to critical retrospective review by physicians testifying as expert witnesses in the alien setting of the courtroom, in the event of litigation.

The definition provided under the statute is:

"A medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in:

placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,
serious impairment to bodily functions, or
serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part, or


"With respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions --
that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or
that the transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or her unborn child."

The only obligation is that the hospital evaluate the person to determine if an emergency condition exists. If one does, they are only obligated to treat until the person is "stable" or to transfer to another facility. If one does not, they are under no obligation to treat.


FAQ on EMTALA

my wife works in the ER, so I'll get back to you on that. she's at work right now, so....

 

[Emma]

my wife works in the ER, so I'll get back to you on that. she's at work right now, so....

Then she should be familiar with the EMTALA regulations.

I think most hospital EDs don't turn people away because the risk of violating EMTALA is pretty harsh; they could lose their Medicare funding and that would essentially close their doors. But as far as the letter of the law goes, they are only obligated to evaluate for an 'emergency medical condition' and to treat until stable if it exists.

Ask her about the EMTALA signs posted in her ED.

HCFA language for COBRA Signs

The following language is required by the Health Care Financing Administration to be posted in all public entrances, registration areas, emergency department treatment waiting areas (including separate areas for obstetrics, psychiatry, and urgent care clinics where patients present on an unscheduled basis). This language is awkward, but its what the government wants...

IT'S THE LAW

IF YOU HAVE A MEDICAL EMERGENCY OR ARE IN
LABOR, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE,
within the capabilities of this hospital's staff
and facilities:

An appropriate Medical SCREENING EXAMINATION
Necessary STABILIZING TEATMENT
(including treatment for an unborn child) and, if necessary,

An appropriate TRANSFER to another facility
Even if YOU CANNOT PAY or DO NOT HAVE
MEDICAL INSURANCE

or

YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO MEDICARE OR MEDICAID

This hospital (DOES/DOES NOT) participate in the Medicaid Program

This sign must be clearly visible from a distance of 20 feet away or from patient's likely viewing point and posted in a manner likely to be seen. This requirement typically requires signs in general areas to by approximately 18" x 20". Signs must be posted in foreign languages where applicable, and the same size requirements apply. Signs in small cubicles or areas less than 20 feet may be smaller, but still must be clearly visible. Conflicting signs are not permitted if they detract from the COBRA sign or may raise confusion by references to payment, advanced authorization, co-pays, etc.
Please note that this requirement means that individual treatment rooms in an Emergency Department of area covered by the EMTALA rules, such as OB and psych intake areas, urgent care units, and walk-in clinic areas must have signs in the small size. Ambulance entrances and public entrances leading to the Emergency Department must have full-sized signs.

MedLaw.com :: EMTALA sign requirements and language

 

[veritas]

Yeah, if you're about to foal or got hit by a car, you get service. If you're actually sick, you can just go somewhere and die.

 

[Fatality]

Generally, insurance organizations negotiate lower costs for all procedures right off the top. Insurance companies are in the business of taking premiums and paying claims. The lower the payouts, the higher the profits.

Insurance companies are in the business of making money. Denying coverage and claims = higher profits. Those who are lucky enough to work for an employer that has a large group base and can negotiate better terms with the insurance carriers get the best coverage.

And those who can't afford health insurance get sick and die.

It's a great system.

they will be forced to buy it by law.

 

[Bfgrn]

Insurance companies are in the business of making money. Denying coverage and claims = higher profits. Those who are lucky enough to work for an employer that has a large group base and can negotiate better terms with the insurance carriers get the best coverage.

And those who can't afford health insurance get sick and die.

It's a great system.

except there are hospitals that are not allowed to refuse care whether they have insurance or not.
lying shitstain.

And WE pay for it pea brain...and ER is the HIGHEST costing medical care...

Pea brains are doing back flips because their health insurance will cost MORE and because insurance executives can continue to make there $$$MILLIONS$$$ as hard working people DIE...

Thursday, August 23, 2007
CEO Compensation: Who Said Health Care is in a Financial Crisis?

Those of you who are struggling to pay for your generic medicines or wondering why the doctor is charging you a $5.00 co-pay, give some thought to these facts about how our health care dollars are allocated. At the end of this post, there is a list of 23 health companies I found on Forbes.com, what the CEO was paid in 2005, and the average paid to the CEO in the past five years.

Imagine adding vice presidents, Board of Directors, stock holders and the other 200-300 other companies all cashing in on your health to that total at the bottom.

Based on this, the next time you want to argue with your Primary Care doctor's front desk about a $5.00 co-pay, remember that he makes an average of $149,000.00 per year. On the other hand -- using United Healthcare as an example -- your insurance company paid their CEO -- one man -- $324,000,000 over a recent five year period.

If you are uninsured, try calling any one of these 23 CEOs and see if they will give you free insurance.

BTW: 10% of 14.9 billion is 1.4 billion. If basic insurance costs $8,000/year for a family then taking 10% from just these CEO salaries would insure 35,000 Americans a year for five years. That is a lot of people that can be helped just by 23 men. Looking at the companies as a whole that profit from health care, we can probably pay for every uninsured person in this country for decades to come.

The numbers are numbing, which is why we should do something about this.

* United Health Group
CEO: William W McGuire
2005: 124.8 mil
5-year: 342 mil

* Forest Labs
CEO: Howard Solomon
2005: 92.1 mil
5-year: 295 mil

* Caremark Rx
CEO: Edwin M Crawford
2005: 77.9 mil
5-year: 93.6 mil

* Abbott Lab
CEO: Miles White
2005: 26.2 mil
5-year: 25.8 mil

* Aetna
CEO: John Rowe
2005: 22.1 mil
5-year:57.8 mil

* Amgen
CEO: Kevin Sharer
2005:5.7 mil
5-year:59.5 mil

* Bectin-Dickinson
CEO: Edwin Ludwig
2005: 10 mil
5-year:18 mil

* Boston Scientific
CEO:
2005:38.1 mil
5-year:45 mil

* Cardinal Health
CEO: James Tobin
2005:1.1 mil
5-year:33.5 mil

* Cigna
CEO: H. Edward Hanway
2005:13.3 mil
5-year:62.8 mil

* Genzyme
CEO: Henri Termeer
2005: 19 mil
5-year:60.7 mil

* Humana
CEO: Michael McAllister
2005:2.3 mil
5-year:12.9 mil

* Johnson & Johnson
CEO: William Weldon
2005:6.1 mil
5-year:19.7 mil

* Laboratory Corp America
CEO: Thomas MacMahon
2005:7.9 mil
5-year:41.8 mil

* Eli Lilly
CEO: Sidney Taurel
2005:7.2 mil
5-year:37.9 mil

* McKesson
CEO: John Hammergen
2005: 13.4 mil
5-year:31.2 mil

* Medtronic
CEO: Arthur Collins
2005: 4.7 mil
5-year:39 mil

* Merck Raymond Gilmartin
CEO:
2005: 37.8 mil
5-year:49.6 mil

* PacifiCare Health
CEO: Howard Phanstiel
2005: 3.4 mil
5-year: 8.5 mil

* Pfizer
CEO: Henry McKinnell
2005: 14 mil
5-year: 74 mil

* Well Choice
CEO: Michael Stocker
2005: 3.2 mil
5-year: 10.7 mil

* WellPoint
CEO: Larry Glasscock
2005: 23 mil
5-year: 46.8 mil

* Wyeth
CEO: Robert Essner
2005:6.5 mil
5-year: 28.9 mil


TOTAL 2005: 559.8 mil

TOTAL 5-Year: 14.9 billion

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

If you are going to limit how much money someone can earn start with sports starts.

 

[Fatality]

If you are going to limit how much money someone can earn start with sports starts.

and rock stars and actors...oh, and politicians

 

[Care4all]

By public option do you mean people's right to choose a private HC insurer?

You are correct.

I usually am.



Yes, so I'd noticed. Hence my confession of same.



Oh, okay.




God bless America!

It also means illegal aliens will now get free healthcare when they fraudulently present stolen ID's to the government workers who will sign them up.

That sounds bad.

It also means all those people who OPTED out of healthcare offered by their employer will get the opportunity to get a reduced rate healthcare plan from the government.

Does it?

So tht means that your primary concern is that the Gov sponsored HC will be a superior buy that decriminating consumers will choose to purchase over the private HC insurance they can get at work?

This is a bad thing, why exactly?

Ed, the public option is similar to a medicare insurance option, where there is no middle man private insurer....

It is not given to any joe out there....each state has their own MEDICAID rules for the indigent and what it takes s to qualify in their state. many states already provide private health insurance for their medicaid recipients and this has come to save them money instead of costing them more, because they reduced their EMERGENCY room costs for the medicaid recipients....

The Public option goes on the Insurance exchange and competes with their benefits and costs against the private insurers...

Democrats feel that having only private insurance companies, where many states have just one or two insurance companies operating, is NOT good competition, not good enough for the true capitalistic competition that is needed in order to keep prices down.

Without the public option, then prices will not be moderated or go down...

it would be a mistake to pass this bill without the public option as competition to the private sector.

Why is it, that conservatives INSIST that the private sector compete with the government on various projects and if the private sector wins with the best bid, that beats out what the gvt says they can do it for, the private sector is reverend and picked....

BUT NOW, they do not want the private sector to compete with the gvt, they want it just handed to them with NO COMPETITION AT ALL?

why? why? why?

it just doesn't make sense to take this stance...not in the least!

The public option is an insurance policy that can be purchased, by you individually, by your company that buys the group insurance, whoever...

Illegal aliens are absolutely NOT eligible for any health care coverage under this reform.

 

[elvis]

Insurance companies are in the business of making money. Denying coverage and claims = higher profits. Those who are lucky enough to work for an employer that has a large group base and can negotiate better terms with the insurance carriers get the best coverage.

And those who can't afford health insurance get sick and die.

It's a great system.

they will be forced to buy it by law.

well, that may force chris to stop being a shitstain, I guess.

 

[Fatality]

And those who can't afford health insurance get sick and die.

It's a great system.

except there are hospitals that are not allowed to refuse care whether they have insurance or not.
lying shitstain.

And WE pay for it pea brain...and ER is the HIGHEST costing medical care...

Pea brains are doing back flips because their health insurance will cost MORE and because insurance executives can continue to make there $$$MILLIONS$$$ as hard working people DIE...

Thursday, August 23, 2007
CEO Compensation: Who Said Health Care is in a Financial Crisis?

Those of you who are struggling to pay for your generic medicines or wondering why the doctor is charging you a $5.00 co-pay, give some thought to these facts about how our health care dollars are allocated. At the end of this post, there is a list of 23 health companies I found on Forbes.com, what the CEO was paid in 2005, and the average paid to the CEO in the past five years.

Imagine adding vice presidents, Board of Directors, stock holders and the other 200-300 other companies all cashing in on your health to that total at the bottom.

Based on this, the next time you want to argue with your Primary Care doctor's front desk about a $5.00 co-pay, remember that he makes an average of $149,000.00 per year. On the other hand -- using United Healthcare as an example -- your insurance company paid their CEO -- one man -- $324,000,000 over a recent five year period.

If you are uninsured, try calling any one of these 23 CEOs and see if they will give you free insurance.

BTW: 10% of 14.9 billion is 1.4 billion. If basic insurance costs $8,000/year for a family then taking 10% from just these CEO salaries would insure 35,000 Americans a year for five years. That is a lot of people that can be helped just by 23 men. Looking at the companies as a whole that profit from health care, we can probably pay for every uninsured person in this country for decades to come.

The numbers are numbing, which is why we should do something about this.

* United Health Group
CEO: William W McGuire
2005: 124.8 mil
5-year: 342 mil

* Forest Labs
CEO: Howard Solomon
2005: 92.1 mil
5-year: 295 mil

* Caremark Rx
CEO: Edwin M Crawford
2005: 77.9 mil
5-year: 93.6 mil

* Abbott Lab
CEO: Miles White
2005: 26.2 mil
5-year: 25.8 mil

* Aetna
CEO: John Rowe
2005: 22.1 mil
5-year:57.8 mil

* Amgen
CEO: Kevin Sharer
2005:5.7 mil
5-year:59.5 mil

* Bectin-Dickinson
CEO: Edwin Ludwig
2005: 10 mil
5-year:18 mil

* Boston Scientific
CEO:
2005:38.1 mil
5-year:45 mil

* Cardinal Health
CEO: James Tobin
2005:1.1 mil
5-year:33.5 mil

* Cigna
CEO: H. Edward Hanway
2005:13.3 mil
5-year:62.8 mil

* Genzyme
CEO: Henri Termeer
2005: 19 mil
5-year:60.7 mil

* Humana
CEO: Michael McAllister
2005:2.3 mil
5-year:12.9 mil

* Johnson & Johnson
CEO: William Weldon
2005:6.1 mil
5-year:19.7 mil

* Laboratory Corp America
CEO: Thomas MacMahon
2005:7.9 mil
5-year:41.8 mil

* Eli Lilly
CEO: Sidney Taurel
2005:7.2 mil
5-year:37.9 mil

* McKesson
CEO: John Hammergen
2005: 13.4 mil
5-year:31.2 mil

* Medtronic
CEO: Arthur Collins
2005: 4.7 mil
5-year:39 mil

* Merck Raymond Gilmartin
CEO:
2005: 37.8 mil
5-year:49.6 mil

* PacifiCare Health
CEO: Howard Phanstiel
2005: 3.4 mil
5-year: 8.5 mil

* Pfizer
CEO: Henry McKinnell
2005: 14 mil
5-year: 74 mil

* Well Choice
CEO: Michael Stocker
2005: 3.2 mil
5-year: 10.7 mil

* WellPoint
CEO: Larry Glasscock
2005: 23 mil
5-year: 46.8 mil

* Wyeth
CEO: Robert Essner
2005:6.5 mil
5-year: 28.9 mil


TOTAL 2005: 559.8 mil

TOTAL 5-Year: 14.9 billion

they will have an unfettered income stream once law passes forcing every man woman and child to buy health insurance.

 

[elvis]

And those who can't afford health insurance get sick and die.

It's a great system.

except there are hospitals that are not allowed to refuse care whether they have insurance or not.
lying shitstain.

And WE pay for it pea brain...and ER is the HIGHEST costing medical care...

Pea brains are doing back flips because their health insurance will cost MORE and because insurance executives can continue to make there $$$MILLIONS$$$ as hard working people DIE...

Thursday, August 23, 2007
CEO Compensation: Who Said Health Care is in a Financial Crisis?

Those of you who are struggling to pay for your generic medicines or wondering why the doctor is charging you a $5.00 co-pay, give some thought to these facts about how our health care dollars are allocated. At the end of this post, there is a list of 23 health companies I found on Forbes.com, what the CEO was paid in 2005, and the average paid to the CEO in the past five years.

Imagine adding vice presidents, Board of Directors, stock holders and the other 200-300 other companies all cashing in on your health to that total at the bottom.

Based on this, the next time you want to argue with your Primary Care doctor's front desk about a $5.00 co-pay, remember that he makes an average of $149,000.00 per year. On the other hand -- using United Healthcare as an example -- your insurance company paid their CEO -- one man -- $324,000,000 over a recent five year period.

If you are uninsured, try calling any one of these 23 CEOs and see if they will give you free insurance.

BTW: 10% of 14.9 billion is 1.4 billion. If basic insurance costs $8,000/year for a family then taking 10% from just these CEO salaries would insure 35,000 Americans a year for five years. That is a lot of people that can be helped just by 23 men. Looking at the companies as a whole that profit from health care, we can probably pay for every uninsured person in this country for decades to come.

The numbers are numbing, which is why we should do something about this.

* United Health Group
CEO: William W McGuire
2005: 124.8 mil
5-year: 342 mil

* Forest Labs
CEO: Howard Solomon
2005: 92.1 mil
5-year: 295 mil

* Caremark Rx
CEO: Edwin M Crawford
2005: 77.9 mil
5-year: 93.6 mil

* Abbott Lab
CEO: Miles White
2005: 26.2 mil
5-year: 25.8 mil

* Aetna
CEO: John Rowe
2005: 22.1 mil
5-year:57.8 mil

* Amgen
CEO: Kevin Sharer
2005:5.7 mil
5-year:59.5 mil

* Bectin-Dickinson
CEO: Edwin Ludwig
2005: 10 mil
5-year:18 mil

* Boston Scientific
CEO:
2005:38.1 mil
5-year:45 mil

* Cardinal Health
CEO: James Tobin
2005:1.1 mil
5-year:33.5 mil

* Cigna
CEO: H. Edward Hanway
2005:13.3 mil
5-year:62.8 mil

* Genzyme
CEO: Henri Termeer
2005: 19 mil
5-year:60.7 mil

* Humana
CEO: Michael McAllister
2005:2.3 mil
5-year:12.9 mil

* Johnson & Johnson
CEO: William Weldon
2005:6.1 mil
5-year:19.7 mil

* Laboratory Corp America
CEO: Thomas MacMahon
2005:7.9 mil
5-year:41.8 mil

* Eli Lilly
CEO: Sidney Taurel
2005:7.2 mil
5-year:37.9 mil

* McKesson
CEO: John Hammergen
2005: 13.4 mil
5-year:31.2 mil

* Medtronic
CEO: Arthur Collins
2005: 4.7 mil
5-year:39 mil

* Merck Raymond Gilmartin
CEO:
2005: 37.8 mil
5-year:49.6 mil

* PacifiCare Health
CEO: Howard Phanstiel
2005: 3.4 mil
5-year: 8.5 mil

* Pfizer
CEO: Henry McKinnell
2005: 14 mil
5-year: 74 mil

* Well Choice
CEO: Michael Stocker
2005: 3.2 mil
5-year: 10.7 mil

* WellPoint
CEO: Larry Glasscock
2005: 23 mil
5-year: 46.8 mil

* Wyeth
CEO: Robert Essner
2005:6.5 mil
5-year: 28.9 mil


TOTAL 2005: 559.8 mil

TOTAL 5-Year: 14.9 billion

fuck off you braindead moron. you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. people like you shouldn't be allowed to vote, you fucking robot.

 

[Maple]

Well Emma, you can only blame your OWN party when that happens because the democrats hold the majority in the house, the senate, and the administration. THEY DO NOT NEED ONE REPUBLICAN VOTE TO PASS IT.

 

[elvis]

Well Emma, you can only blame your OWN party when that happens because the democrats hold the majority in the house, the senate, and the administration. THEY DO NOT NEED ONE REPUBLICAN VOTE TO PASS IT.

this is what I keep saying.

 

[Care4all]

except there are hospitals that are not allowed to refuse care whether they have insurance or not.
lying shitstain.

And WE pay for it pea brain...and ER is the HIGHEST costing medical care...

Pea brains are doing back flips because their health insurance will cost MORE and because insurance executives can continue to make there $$$MILLIONS$$$ as hard working people DIE...

Thursday, August 23, 2007
CEO Compensation: Who Said Health Care is in a Financial Crisis?

Those of you who are struggling to pay for your generic medicines or wondering why the doctor is charging you a $5.00 co-pay, give some thought to these facts about how our health care dollars are allocated. At the end of this post, there is a list of 23 health companies I found on Forbes.com, what the CEO was paid in 2005, and the average paid to the CEO in the past five years.

Imagine adding vice presidents, Board of Directors, stock holders and the other 200-300 other companies all cashing in on your health to that total at the bottom.

Based on this, the next time you want to argue with your Primary Care doctor's front desk about a $5.00 co-pay, remember that he makes an average of $149,000.00 per year. On the other hand -- using United Healthcare as an example -- your insurance company paid their CEO -- one man -- $324,000,000 over a recent five year period.

If you are uninsured, try calling any one of these 23 CEOs and see if they will give you free insurance.

BTW: 10% of 14.9 billion is 1.4 billion. If basic insurance costs $8,000/year for a family then taking 10% from just these CEO salaries would insure 35,000 Americans a year for five years. That is a lot of people that can be helped just by 23 men. Looking at the companies as a whole that profit from health care, we can probably pay for every uninsured person in this country for decades to come.

The numbers are numbing, which is why we should do something about this.

* United Health Group
CEO: William W McGuire
2005: 124.8 mil
5-year: 342 mil

* Forest Labs
CEO: Howard Solomon
2005: 92.1 mil
5-year: 295 mil

* Caremark Rx
CEO: Edwin M Crawford
2005: 77.9 mil
5-year: 93.6 mil

* Abbott Lab
CEO: Miles White
2005: 26.2 mil
5-year: 25.8 mil

* Aetna
CEO: John Rowe
2005: 22.1 mil
5-year:57.8 mil

* Amgen
CEO: Kevin Sharer
2005:5.7 mil
5-year:59.5 mil

* Bectin-Dickinson
CEO: Edwin Ludwig
2005: 10 mil
5-year:18 mil

* Boston Scientific
CEO:
2005:38.1 mil
5-year:45 mil

* Cardinal Health
CEO: James Tobin
2005:1.1 mil
5-year:33.5 mil

* Cigna
CEO: H. Edward Hanway
2005:13.3 mil
5-year:62.8 mil

* Genzyme
CEO: Henri Termeer
2005: 19 mil
5-year:60.7 mil

* Humana
CEO: Michael McAllister
2005:2.3 mil
5-year:12.9 mil

* Johnson & Johnson
CEO: William Weldon
2005:6.1 mil
5-year:19.7 mil

* Laboratory Corp America
CEO: Thomas MacMahon
2005:7.9 mil
5-year:41.8 mil

* Eli Lilly
CEO: Sidney Taurel
2005:7.2 mil
5-year:37.9 mil

* McKesson
CEO: John Hammergen
2005: 13.4 mil
5-year:31.2 mil

* Medtronic
CEO: Arthur Collins
2005: 4.7 mil
5-year:39 mil

* Merck Raymond Gilmartin
CEO:
2005: 37.8 mil
5-year:49.6 mil

* PacifiCare Health
CEO: Howard Phanstiel
2005: 3.4 mil
5-year: 8.5 mil

* Pfizer
CEO: Henry McKinnell
2005: 14 mil
5-year: 74 mil

* Well Choice
CEO: Michael Stocker
2005: 3.2 mil
5-year: 10.7 mil

* WellPoint
CEO: Larry Glasscock
2005: 23 mil
5-year: 46.8 mil

* Wyeth
CEO: Robert Essner
2005:6.5 mil
5-year: 28.9 mil


TOTAL 2005: 559.8 mil

TOTAL 5-Year: 14.9 billion

they will have an unfettered income stream once law passes forcing every man woman and child to buy health insurance.

UNLESS there is a public option or a nonprofit private coop option to keep them honest, you are correct, this is a GIFT HORSE to the private insurance companies, this is WHY they support this reform, AS LONG AS THERE IS NO public or coop option.

The private sector competes with the gvt all the time....KBR got the contract to provide meals in iraq instead of the military doing it themselves as example, supposedly KBR cost LESS than the gvt so they got the job....air trafic control centers at airports have gone private vs FAA, where the private sector could do it for less money....

WHY is it, that people are now, all of a sudden, against competing with our gvt????when our gvt IS the single biggest payer of our health care costs with the tax deductions given to employers, medicaid, medicare, CHIPS, all gvt employees insurance, all medical care for the military and our disabled veterans and retired military families etc???

care

 

[nodoginnafight]

are yoiu going to be pissed when obama abandons the public option portion of his health bill?

I don't know if this question is directed at me. Despite claims to the contrary by people who don't know anything about me, I lean to liberalism on most social issues and lean to the conservative POV on fiscal issues and abortion.

BUT, I voted for Obama and I don't have any real strong feeling on Healthcare one way or another. So, no. It wouldn't crush me to see a public option abandoned.

 

[Emma]

Well Emma, you can only blame your OWN party when that happens because the democrats hold the majority in the house, the senate, and the administration. THEY DO NOT NEED ONE REPUBLICAN VOTE TO PASS IT.

Absolutely.

I'm not a Democrat, but hell yeah I blame those idiots.

 

[Bfgrn]

except there are hospitals that are not allowed to refuse care whether they have insurance or not.
lying shitstain.

And WE pay for it pea brain...and ER is the HIGHEST costing medical care...

Pea brains are doing back flips because their health insurance will cost MORE and because insurance executives can continue to make there $$$MILLIONS$$$ as hard working people DIE...

Thursday, August 23, 2007
CEO Compensation: Who Said Health Care is in a Financial Crisis?

Those of you who are struggling to pay for your generic medicines or wondering why the doctor is charging you a $5.00 co-pay, give some thought to these facts about how our health care dollars are allocated. At the end of this post, there is a list of 23 health companies I found on Forbes.com, what the CEO was paid in 2005, and the average paid to the CEO in the past five years.

Imagine adding vice presidents, Board of Directors, stock holders and the other 200-300 other companies all cashing in on your health to that total at the bottom.

Based on this, the next time you want to argue with your Primary Care doctor's front desk about a $5.00 co-pay, remember that he makes an average of $149,000.00 per year. On the other hand -- using United Healthcare as an example -- your insurance company paid their CEO -- one man -- $324,000,000 over a recent five year period.

If you are uninsured, try calling any one of these 23 CEOs and see if they will give you free insurance.

BTW: 10% of 14.9 billion is 1.4 billion. If basic insurance costs $8,000/year for a family then taking 10% from just these CEO salaries would insure 35,000 Americans a year for five years. That is a lot of people that can be helped just by 23 men. Looking at the companies as a whole that profit from health care, we can probably pay for every uninsured person in this country for decades to come.

The numbers are numbing, which is why we should do something about this.

* United Health Group
CEO: William W McGuire
2005: 124.8 mil
5-year: 342 mil

* Forest Labs
CEO: Howard Solomon
2005: 92.1 mil
5-year: 295 mil

* Caremark Rx
CEO: Edwin M Crawford
2005: 77.9 mil
5-year: 93.6 mil

* Abbott Lab
CEO: Miles White
2005: 26.2 mil
5-year: 25.8 mil

* Aetna
CEO: John Rowe
2005: 22.1 mil
5-year:57.8 mil

* Amgen
CEO: Kevin Sharer
2005:5.7 mil
5-year:59.5 mil

* Bectin-Dickinson
CEO: Edwin Ludwig
2005: 10 mil
5-year:18 mil

* Boston Scientific
CEO:
2005:38.1 mil
5-year:45 mil

* Cardinal Health
CEO: James Tobin
2005:1.1 mil
5-year:33.5 mil

* Cigna
CEO: H. Edward Hanway
2005:13.3 mil
5-year:62.8 mil

* Genzyme
CEO: Henri Termeer
2005: 19 mil
5-year:60.7 mil

* Humana
CEO: Michael McAllister
2005:2.3 mil
5-year:12.9 mil

* Johnson & Johnson
CEO: William Weldon
2005:6.1 mil
5-year:19.7 mil

* Laboratory Corp America
CEO: Thomas MacMahon
2005:7.9 mil
5-year:41.8 mil

* Eli Lilly
CEO: Sidney Taurel
2005:7.2 mil
5-year:37.9 mil

* McKesson
CEO: John Hammergen
2005: 13.4 mil
5-year:31.2 mil

* Medtronic
CEO: Arthur Collins
2005: 4.7 mil
5-year:39 mil

* Merck Raymond Gilmartin
CEO:
2005: 37.8 mil
5-year:49.6 mil

* PacifiCare Health
CEO: Howard Phanstiel
2005: 3.4 mil
5-year: 8.5 mil

* Pfizer
CEO: Henry McKinnell
2005: 14 mil
5-year: 74 mil

* Well Choice
CEO: Michael Stocker
2005: 3.2 mil
5-year: 10.7 mil

* WellPoint
CEO: Larry Glasscock
2005: 23 mil
5-year: 46.8 mil

* Wyeth
CEO: Robert Essner
2005:6.5 mil
5-year: 28.9 mil


TOTAL 2005: 559.8 mil

TOTAL 5-Year: 14.9 billion

fuck off you braindead moron. you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. people like you shouldn't be allowed to vote, you fucking robot.

I know exactly what I'm talking about, and you have no comeback, so you show your frustration and your anger...

He who angers you conquers you.
E. Kenny

 

[nodoginnafight]

He who angers you conquers you.
E. Kenny