Under obamacare ER visits will be prohibited

[geauxtohell]

About two weeks ago. My wife's been having breathing issues since late last year, and we can't get a good diagnosis. The pulmonologist who treated her earlier is a dick who won't listen to his patients, and the other ones in town work in the same practice as him and they won't second-guess each other.

Meanwhile, I can't help but notice you've utterly disregarded KKLCB's post.

Yes I am totally disregarding her post.

Not at all surprising, really.

No ER will refuse a patient in need of care. It's agaisnt the law, and opens the hospital up to a lawsuit. Hospitals are required by law to treat you and stabilize you, after that they can transfer you if needed, but they can't say " we've already helped you this month, go somewhere else"

Ahh, but the law is changing, isn't it?

And nobody really knows how. That's what happens when you rush through a poorly-written pile of crap that's had no thought given to the consequences.

No. Obamacare does nothing to change EMTALA, which is a federal mandate from 1986.

Nice try, though.

 

[AmyNation]

About two weeks ago. My wife's been having breathing issues since late last year, and we can't get a good diagnosis. The pulmonologist who treated her earlier is a dick who won't listen to his patients, and the other ones in town work in the same practice as him and they won't second-guess each other.

Meanwhile, I can't help but notice you've utterly disregarded KKLCB's post.

Yes I am totally disregarding her post.

Not at all surprising, really.

No ER will refuse a patient in need of care. It's agaisnt the law, and opens the hospital up to a lawsuit. Hospitals are required by law to treat you and stabilize you, after that they can transfer you if needed, but they can't say " we've already helped you this month, go somewhere else"

Ahh, but the law is changing, isn't it?

And nobody really knows how. That's what happens when you rush through a poorly-written pile of crap that's had no thought given to the consequences.

*shrug* that's your opinion, I doubt anything I could type would change your opinion of the ACA.

On a side note, I spent last night in the ER with my daughter who was running a fever. There were signs, in several languages posted all over the place, declaring that the hospital would treat you, no matter if you could afford to pay, but that you would be required to pay something, if it was deemed you were able.

I was very greatful to have insurance, because unlike many I was able to focus on my sick child, and not what the cost was going to be at the end of the night.

 

[geauxtohell]

Yes I am totally disregarding her post.

Not at all surprising, really.

No ER will refuse a patient in need of care. It's agaisnt the law, and opens the hospital up to a lawsuit. Hospitals are required by law to treat you and stabilize you, after that they can transfer you if needed, but they can't say " we've already helped you this month, go somewhere else"

Ahh, but the law is changing, isn't it?

And nobody really knows how. That's what happens when you rush through a poorly-written pile of crap that's had no thought given to the consequences.

*shrug* that's your opinion, I doubt anything I could type would change your opinion of the ACA.

On a side note, I spent last night in the ER with my daughter who was running a fever. There were signs, in several languages posted all over the place, declaring that the hospital would treat you, no matter if you could afford to pay, but that you would be required to pay something, if it was deemed you were able.

I was very greatful to have insurance, because unlike many I was able to focus on my sick child, and not what the cost was going to be at the end of the night.

Either way, you're daughter would be treated. Another consequence of EMTALA.

Some would say EMTALA was our first step towards socialized medicine as it prevented hospitals from basing treatment on ability to pay. Which, de facto, meant that everybody got treated.

We owe Ronald Reagan a great debt of gratitude for signing it into law..........

 

[Greenbeard]

Ahh, but the law is changing, isn't it?

And nobody really knows how.

Actually, a great many people really know how.

It's been three years, you can stop with the "rushed through" stuff. If you don't know what's in it by now after three years, you were never going to know and you likely never will.

 

[Polk]

About two weeks ago. My wife's been having breathing issues since late last year, and we can't get a good diagnosis. The pulmonologist who treated her earlier is a dick who won't listen to his patients, and the other ones in town work in the same practice as him and they won't second-guess each other.

Meanwhile, I can't help but notice you've utterly disregarded KKLCB's post.

Yes I am totally disregarding her post.

No ER will refuse a patient in need of care. It's agaisnt the law, and opens the hospital up to a lawsuit. Hospitals are required by law to treat you and stabilize you, after that they can transfer you if needed, but they can't say " we've already helped you this month, go somewhere else"

EMTALA.

They can't just "transfer" them either. It has to be an appropriate transfer.

Again, I suspect there is more to this story.

I don't think there's a story here. It's all outrage pimping.

 

[Polk]

Ahh, but the law is changing, isn't it?

And nobody really knows how.

Actually, a great many people really know how.

It's been three years, you can stop with the "rushed through" stuff. If you don't know what's in it by now after three years, you were never going to know and you likely never will.

You actually expect him to read? Elitist snob.

 

[daveman]

Sounds like you have it nailed. Why not make the diagnosis and implement a plan of treatment yourself?

I mean, you obviously know more than the Pulm/critical care doctors and ED doctors in your town!

When a doctor doesn't listen to his patient's description of symptoms, makes a diagnosis and prescribes a treatment that doesn't work, then changes the diagnosis and prescribes another treatment that doesn't work...something's wrong. With the doctor.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but doctors aren't gods. They're human, and therefore fallible.

As an aside, I'll bet you hate "obamacare" don't you? Rube.

Obama isn't a god, either.

No, really.

I'll give you a few moments to get over the shock.

 

[daveman]

Yes I am totally disregarding her post.

Not at all surprising, really.

No ER will refuse a patient in need of care. It's agaisnt the law, and opens the hospital up to a lawsuit. Hospitals are required by law to treat you and stabilize you, after that they can transfer you if needed, but they can't say " we've already helped you this month, go somewhere else"

Ahh, but the law is changing, isn't it?

And nobody really knows how. That's what happens when you rush through a poorly-written pile of crap that's had no thought given to the consequences.

No. Obamacare does nothing to change EMTALA, which is a federal mandate from 1986.

Nice try, though.

True, but that doesn't alter my contention that Obamacare is a poorly-written pile of crap that's had no thought given to the consequences.

 

[daveman]

Yes I am totally disregarding her post.

Not at all surprising, really.

No ER will refuse a patient in need of care. It's agaisnt the law, and opens the hospital up to a lawsuit. Hospitals are required by law to treat you and stabilize you, after that they can transfer you if needed, but they can't say " we've already helped you this month, go somewhere else"

Ahh, but the law is changing, isn't it?

And nobody really knows how. That's what happens when you rush through a poorly-written pile of crap that's had no thought given to the consequences.

*shrug* that's your opinion, I doubt anything I could type would change your opinion of the ACA.

On a side note, I spent last night in the ER with my daughter who was running a fever. There were signs, in several languages posted all over the place, declaring that the hospital would treat you, no matter if you could afford to pay, but that you would be required to pay something, if it was deemed you were able.

I was very greatful to have insurance, because unlike many I was able to focus on my sick child, and not what the cost was going to be at the end of the night.

I hope your daughter's feeling better. It's always terrifying to have a child in the ER.

 

[daveman]

Ahh, but the law is changing, isn't it?

And nobody really knows how.

Actually, a great many people really know how.

It's been three years, you can stop with the "rushed through" stuff. If you don't know what's in it by now after three years, you were never going to know and you likely never will.

You're saying it wasn't rushed through?

Really?

Because it was, you know. Hell, even the Democratic leadership didn't read it.

 

[AmyNation]

Not at all surprising, really.

Ahh, but the law is changing, isn't it?

And nobody really knows how. That's what happens when you rush through a poorly-written pile of crap that's had no thought given to the consequences.

*shrug* that's your opinion, I doubt anything I could type would change your opinion of the ACA.

On a side note, I spent last night in the ER with my daughter who was running a fever. There were signs, in several languages posted all over the place, declaring that the hospital would treat you, no matter if you could afford to pay, but that you would be required to pay something, if it was deemed you were able.

I was very greatful to have insurance, because unlike many I was able to focus on my sick child, and not what the cost was going to be at the end of the night.

I hope your daughter's feeling better. It's always terrifying to have a child in the ER.

She is, thank you

 

[daveman]

Ahh, but the law is changing, isn't it?

And nobody really knows how.

Actually, a great many people really know how.

It's been three years, you can stop with the "rushed through" stuff. If you don't know what's in it by now after three years, you were never going to know and you likely never will.

You actually expect him to read? Elitist snob.

Speaking of elitist snobs...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To]Pelosi: we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it - YouTube[/ame]

I guarantee you had no problem with Pelosi's statement.

 

[daveman]

*shrug* that's your opinion, I doubt anything I could type would change your opinion of the ACA.

On a side note, I spent last night in the ER with my daughter who was running a fever. There were signs, in several languages posted all over the place, declaring that the hospital would treat you, no matter if you could afford to pay, but that you would be required to pay something, if it was deemed you were able.

I was very greatful to have insurance, because unlike many I was able to focus on my sick child, and not what the cost was going to be at the end of the night.

I hope your daughter's feeling better. It's always terrifying to have a child in the ER.

She is, thank you

Good!

 

[Greenbeard]

You're saying it wasn't rushed through?

Really?

I'm saying an extra month or two wouldn't have given you more time to read it if three years later you still haven't found the time.

Its contents are mysterious to you because you don't give a shit. I imagine it's easier to allow yourself to believe any wild claim the rightwing blogs make if you don't make any effort to ascertain the truth.