Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You cannot be denied medical treatment if you go to the doctor they must render assistants or they can be sued. It's in thier oath they took before they became a doctor.
This only applies in emergency cases.
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.
When a physician may refuse to treat a patient
There are some circumstances when a physician can "fire" the patient in non-emergency situations. One such circumstance is the patients unwillingness or inability to pay.
So I ask one more time where is the denial?
Patients cannot face criminal prosecution for failure to pay, even if the patient came to the hospital aware of inability to pay. Hospitals and third-party agents may not threaten patients with prosecution as a means of scaring the patient into making payment. Patient can be prosecuted under existing federal, state, or local laws for providing false name, address, or other information to avoid payment, receiving bills, or to hide fugitive status.
A hospital may not perform a credit check on a patient either before, during, or after stay.
The patient cannot receive a negative credit mark for failure to pay the hospital or any related services, or any third-party agent collecting on their behalf. Such services may not threaten patient with credit reporting to scare them into paying.
Hospitals are prohibited from discriminating against or providing substandard care to those who appear impoverished or homeless, are not well-dressed or groomed, or exhibit signs of mental illness or intoxication. If the hospital fears a patient may be a threat to others, the hospital may delay care only as necessary to protect others.
Hospitals are required to sufficiently feed patients unable to pay at a level equal to those able to pay, while meeting all physician-ordered dietary restrictions.
Hospitals are not required to provide premium services to the patient not related to medical care (such as television) when failure to provide this service does not compromise patient care.
Hospitals and affiliated clinics are not required to provide continued outpatient care, drugs, or other supplies following discharge. In the event such services are recommended, but a patient is unable to pay, the hospital is required to refer the patient to a clinic or tax-funded or private program that enables the patient to pay for these services, and to which the patient has reasonable access. Hospitals must reasonably assist patients as necessary to obtain these services by providing information the patient requests.
This only applies in emergency cases.
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.
When a physician may refuse to treat a patient
There are some circumstances when a physician can "fire" the patient in non-emergency situations. One such circumstance is the patients unwillingness or inability to pay.
So I ask one more time where is the denial?
Patients cannot face criminal prosecution for failure to pay, even if the patient came to the hospital aware of inability to pay. Hospitals and third-party agents may not threaten patients with prosecution as a means of scaring the patient into making payment. Patient can be prosecuted under existing federal, state, or local laws for providing false name, address, or other information to avoid payment, receiving bills, or to hide fugitive status.
A hospital may not perform a credit check on a patient either before, during, or after stay.
The patient cannot receive a negative credit mark for failure to pay the hospital or any related services, or any third-party agent collecting on their behalf. Such services may not threaten patient with credit reporting to scare them into paying.
Hospitals are prohibited from discriminating against or providing substandard care to those who appear impoverished or homeless, are not well-dressed or groomed, or exhibit signs of mental illness or intoxication. If the hospital fears a patient may be a threat to others, the hospital may delay care only as necessary to protect others.
Hospitals are required to sufficiently feed patients unable to pay at a level equal to those able to pay, while meeting all physician-ordered dietary restrictions.
Hospitals are not required to provide premium services to the patient not related to medical care (such as television) when failure to provide this service does not compromise patient care.
Hospitals and affiliated clinics are not required to provide continued outpatient care, drugs, or other supplies following discharge. In the event such services are recommended, but a patient is unable to pay, the hospital is required to refer the patient to a clinic or tax-funded or private program that enables the patient to pay for these services, and to which the patient has reasonable access. Hospitals must reasonably assist patients as necessary to obtain these services by providing information the patient requests.
Hospitals/doctors are allowed to deny care/treatment for patients who can't pay (provided there is no emergency). I think that there should be government support for those who earn too much to qualify for government aid but not enough to afford health insurance.
an oath should never be broken?
Lmao all politicians take oaths and virtually all of them break them.
and your point? Do you take an oath lightly? I don't
the only oath I ever took lightly was the one for the Army after I was drafted. It was an oath you either gave or went to Leavenworth.
Oaths at "gunpoint" are worthless.
From providing substandard care, but not prohibited from not providing care.
Except for emergency situations.
Man you are dense today.
So I ask one more time where is the denial?
Patients cannot face criminal prosecution for failure to pay, even if the patient came to the hospital aware of inability to pay. Hospitals and third-party agents may not threaten patients with prosecution as a means of scaring the patient into making payment. Patient can be prosecuted under existing federal, state, or local laws for providing false name, address, or other information to avoid payment, receiving bills, or to hide fugitive status.
A hospital may not perform a credit check on a patient either before, during, or after stay.
The patient cannot receive a negative credit mark for failure to pay the hospital or any related services, or any third-party agent collecting on their behalf. Such services may not threaten patient with credit reporting to scare them into paying.
Hospitals are prohibited from discriminating against or providing substandard care to those who appear impoverished or homeless, are not well-dressed or groomed, or exhibit signs of mental illness or intoxication. If the hospital fears a patient may be a threat to others, the hospital may delay care only as necessary to protect others.
Hospitals are required to sufficiently feed patients unable to pay at a level equal to those able to pay, while meeting all physician-ordered dietary restrictions.
Hospitals are not required to provide premium services to the patient not related to medical care (such as television) when failure to provide this service does not compromise patient care.
Hospitals and affiliated clinics are not required to provide continued outpatient care, drugs, or other supplies following discharge. In the event such services are recommended, but a patient is unable to pay, the hospital is required to refer the patient to a clinic or tax-funded or private program that enables the patient to pay for these services, and to which the patient has reasonable access. Hospitals must reasonably assist patients as necessary to obtain these services by providing information the patient requests.
Hospitals/doctors are allowed to deny care/treatment for patients who can't pay (provided there is no emergency). I think that there should be government support for those who earn too much to qualify for government aid but not enough to afford health insurance.
What Icut and paste came from your link
Here it is again
Hospitals are prohibited from discriminating against or providing substandard care to those who appear impoverished or homeless, are not well-dressed or groomed, or exhibit signs of mental illness or intoxication. If the hospital fears a patient may be a threat to others, the hospital may delay care only as necessary to protect others.
and your point? Do you take an oath lightly? I don't
the only oath I ever took lightly was the one for the Army after I was drafted. It was an oath you either gave or went to Leavenworth.
Oaths at "gunpoint" are worthless.
So an oath is nothing to you? Then should I presume you are a liar?
Hospitals/doctors are allowed to deny care/treatment for patients who can't pay (provided there is no emergency). I think that there should be government support for those who earn too much to qualify for government aid but not enough to afford health insurance.
What Icut and paste came from your link
Here it is again
Hospitals are prohibited from discriminating against or providing substandard care to those who appear impoverished or homeless, are not well-dressed or groomed, or exhibit signs of mental illness or intoxication. If the hospital fears a patient may be a threat to others, the hospital may delay care only as necessary to protect others.
You do not have to look impoverished to be too poor to buy medical service. Facilities often ask for payment "up front". If the patient can't pay, he does not get the care. They are no more being discriminated against than does one who goes into an upscale shopping center only to discover that he can't afford to buy the merchandise.
A point of information. the inventor of the blood transfusion died in NC I believe it was from blood loss because he was denied access to a white hospital. He was black.
What Icut and paste came from your link
Here it is again
Hospitals are prohibited from discriminating against or providing substandard care to those who appear impoverished or homeless, are not well-dressed or groomed, or exhibit signs of mental illness or intoxication. If the hospital fears a patient may be a threat to others, the hospital may delay care only as necessary to protect others.
You do not have to look impoverished to be too poor to buy medical service. Facilities often ask for payment "up front". If the patient can't pay, he does not get the care. They are no more being discriminated against than does one who goes into an upscale shopping center only to discover that he can't afford to buy the merchandise.
Your losing the battle. If you can't understand the information from your own link I can't help you.
Side note What the above means is that the hospital cannot discriminate against anyone. Read your infoirmation in whole one more time.
You do not have to look impoverished to be too poor to buy medical service. Facilities often ask for payment "up front". If the patient can't pay, he does not get the care. They are no more being discriminated against than does one who goes into an upscale shopping center only to discover that he can't afford to buy the merchandise.
Your losing the battle. If you can't understand the information from your own link I can't help you.
Side note What the above means is that the hospital cannot discriminate against anyone. Read your infoirmation in whole one more time.
If you can't afford treatment then doctors are not obligated to treat you. It is as simple as that. Here is an example:
More Cancer Patients Can't Afford Care - CBS Evening News - CBS News
Take Keith Blessington. Whether snowshoeing or hiking in the New Hampshire woods, Blessington always felt great. Then he was laid off. And just as his health care benefits were about to run out, he was diagnosed with stomach cancer. Blessington did find coverage - for double what he had been paying.
Insurance covered most of his medical bills, which totaled more than $200,000. But he still ended up more than $70,000 in debt, and no longer able to afford the home he shares with his ailing mother.
"A growing number of cancer deaths directly attributable to lack of adequate insurance to get the care you need is growing with every passing day," said Dr. John Seffrin, CEO of the American Cancer Society.
"I'm afraid I'll die," said Denise Prosser. The 39-year-old can no longer afford to treat her thyroid cancer, since her husband lost his job and health insurance.
She doesn't qualify for Medicare ("not disabled enough") or Medicaid (her husband makes too much in unemployment). She's not sick enough for the emergency room - yet.
The Prossers are scrambling to find charitable care.
You cannot be denied medical treatment if you go to the doctor they must render assistants or they can be sued. It's in thier oath they took before they became a doctor.
This only applies in emergency cases.
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.
When a physician may refuse to treat a patient
There are some circumstances when a physician can "fire" the patient in non-emergency situations. One such circumstance is the patient’s unwillingness or inability to pay.
So I ask one more time where is the denial?
Patients cannot face criminal prosecution for failure to pay, even if the patient came to the hospital aware of inability to pay. Hospitals and third-party agents may not threaten patients with prosecution as a means of scaring the patient into making payment. Patient can be prosecuted under existing federal, state, or local laws for providing false name, address, or other information to avoid payment, receiving bills, or to hide fugitive status.
A hospital may not perform a credit check on a patient either before, during, or after stay.
The patient cannot receive a negative credit mark for failure to pay the hospital or any related services, or any third-party agent collecting on their behalf. Such services may not threaten patient with credit reporting to scare them into paying.
Hospitals are prohibited from discriminating against or providing substandard care to those who appear impoverished or homeless, are not well-dressed or groomed, or exhibit signs of mental illness or intoxication. If the hospital fears a patient may be a threat to others, the hospital may delay care only as necessary to protect others.
Hospitals are required to sufficiently feed patients unable to pay at a level equal to those able to pay, while meeting all physician-ordered dietary restrictions.
Hospitals are not required to provide premium services to the patient not related to medical care (such as television) when failure to provide this service does not compromise patient care.
Hospitals and affiliated clinics are not required to provide continued outpatient care, drugs, or other supplies following discharge. In the event such services are recommended, but a patient is unable to pay, the hospital is required to refer the patient to a clinic or tax-funded or private program that enables the patient to pay for these services, and to which the patient has reasonable access. Hospitals must reasonably assist patients as necessary to obtain these services by providing information the patient requests.
This only applies in emergency cases.
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.
When a physician may refuse to treat a patient
There are some circumstances when a physician can "fire" the patient in non-emergency situations. One such circumstance is the patients unwillingness or inability to pay.
So I ask one more time where is the denial?
Patients cannot face criminal prosecution for failure to pay, even if the patient came to the hospital aware of inability to pay. Hospitals and third-party agents may not threaten patients with prosecution as a means of scaring the patient into making payment. Patient can be prosecuted under existing federal, state, or local laws for providing false name, address, or other information to avoid payment, receiving bills, or to hide fugitive status.
A hospital may not perform a credit check on a patient either before, during, or after stay.
The patient cannot receive a negative credit mark for failure to pay the hospital or any related services, or any third-party agent collecting on their behalf. Such services may not threaten patient with credit reporting to scare them into paying.
Hospitals are prohibited from discriminating against or providing substandard care to those who appear impoverished or homeless, are not well-dressed or groomed, or exhibit signs of mental illness or intoxication. If the hospital fears a patient may be a threat to others, the hospital may delay care only as necessary to protect others.
Hospitals are required to sufficiently feed patients unable to pay at a level equal to those able to pay, while meeting all physician-ordered dietary restrictions.
Hospitals are not required to provide premium services to the patient not related to medical care (such as television) when failure to provide this service does not compromise patient care.
Hospitals and affiliated clinics are not required to provide continued outpatient care, drugs, or other supplies following discharge. In the event such services are recommended, but a patient is unable to pay, the hospital is required to refer the patient to a clinic or tax-funded or private program that enables the patient to pay for these services, and to which the patient has reasonable access. Hospitals must reasonably assist patients as necessary to obtain these services by providing information the patient requests.
That is not true...at least in the outpatient world. Even if the outpatient services are owned by the hospital
Exactly, and no one in Amerca can be denied healthcare at least they could not before obamacare.
Is healthcare a right?
That is the whole point of obamacare, it is not your choice, the gov't will decide, nothing but a socialist bill.Yes. If the drug is effective, then it is up to the patient and his or her doctor to decide if it is to be part of the treatment protocol.
It certainly is not the business of a few bureaucrats in DC to decide.
Other things in life are expensive: homes, cars, vacations. Why should it be anybody else's business what we decide to purchase?
Interesting because it's the insurance companies will be the ones paying for this. Which means that cost gets passed to everyone else through higher premiums. Now "your choice" is affecting me. Aren't you one of the ones who argues about "paying your own way and not mooching off of everyone else"? This seems like an awfully expensive drug to be using when it isn't proven to be completely effective, especially for a fiscal hawk such as yourself.
Now I'm not saying it should have its approval taken away, at least not for cost reasons. I don't think cost should be a primary factor when considering peoples health, but if the data isn't there to support it being effective then that's a different story.
That's what insurance is - pooled risk. If I want to purchase insurance coverage which includes Avastin as an approved med, I should be able to - just as you should be free to purchase insurance coverage which doesn't. If there is enough demand for both options, then the insurance companies can price them accordingly.
The ObamaCare you support will get rid of any choice regarding coverage whatsoever.
A point of information. the inventor of the blood transfusion died in NC I believe it was from blood loss because he was denied access to a white hospital. He was black.
