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

[Two Thumbs]

another leftist that is against freedom.


ever been to an ER during the day?


It's full of people sitting around waiting to get aspirin for cold or a Band-Aid for a minor cut.

and it you have an actual, painful problem, you have to wait your turn.

That is what affordable health care was supposed to alleviate.

Why is the right wing coming up with this type of solution, instead of ones that prevent the need for more expensive, emergency care for non-emergency issues.

politics and government is not the answer.

they made it worse all on their own.

People that can think, don't look to the government to fix the problems they caused, they look for other sources.

 

[Camp]

In a situation like that they should of done a breathing treatment since you were having a bad asthma attack, without question.

Thank you.

But they wanted to do all those tests first.

You needed a clinic instead of an ER.

He needed a spare inhaler. I'm sure he has one now. He may of got quicker service if he had walked into a clinic, an asthma attack can be life threatening.

Pretty sure the treatment and the inhaler are using the same basic medicine, albuterol, just different delivery systems.

clearly not or my inhaler would have worked.

You can not visually see the medication in the inhaler and inhalers have a few problems that can make them ineffective. Plus, the dosage is better controlled and is a better delivery system with the "treatment" which is given via a nebulizer. The inhaler gives a limited saturation of the medication to you while the nebulizer gives you a lengthy saturation of the medication suspended in a mist. The difference is a few seconds of medication taken in a few puffs compared to a ten-minute or more continuous treatment that literally saturates your upper respiratory and lungs.
Hope this was a one time incident for you and the inhaler works OK for you now.

 

[SeaGal]

When Todd asked Black whether she would get rid of the law, she replied, “I would get rid of a law that says that you ― you are not allowed, as a health care professional, to make that decision about whether someone can be appropriately treated the next day, or at a walk-in clinic, or at their doctor.”

She's right. One of our local hospitals has basically two ER's - one a non-urgent care facility, and the other for urgent care.
btw - Insurance is useless if you can't afford to use it.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) will cause a major expansion of high-deductible health insurance, a fact that has received little attention but has substantial implications for patients, health care pro-viders, and employers. High-deductible health plans (HDHPs), often considered “blunt instruments” that indiscriminately reduce utilization of both appropriate and discretionary care, require annual out-of-pocket payments of $1,000 to $10,000 for many services before more comprehensive coverage begins.1 Unfortunately, large gaps remain in our understanding of HDHPs' effects on vulnerable populations, life-saving services, and health outcomes.2,3
MMS: Error

Medicaid recipients use more than 'their fair share' of ER services...the most expensive place to seek non-emergency services. But not for the Medicaid recipient.

Medicaid beneficiaries use the ED at an almost two-fold higher rate than the privately insured...

Frequent ED users are more likely to have poor physical and mental health, no usual source of care, higher-than-average utilization of other health services, and be dissatisfied with their medical care.12 While they may be a small group of people, they can account for a large share of costs. In Oregon, for instance, 50% of ED expenses in Oregon could be attributed to 3% of the Medicaid population (~16,000 individuals).

https://www.medicaid.gov/Federal-Policy-Guidance/Downloads/CIB-01-16-14.pdf

Medicaid Doubles ER Use

According to the report, released in May, nearly one-third (32 percent) of Medicaid enrollees used the ER at least once during a 12-month period in 2007. Individuals with private health coverage were only about half as likely (17 percent) to visit an ER, and a similar proportion—one in five—of individuals without health coverage did so.

Medicaid enrollees were three times as likely (15 percent vs. 5 percent) as the privately insured, and twice as likely as the uninsured (15 percent vs. 7 percent), to have visited an ER twice in the previous year.
News - Report: Uninsured Emergency Room Use Greatly Exaggerated | Heartland Institute

Ask any first responder about 'frequent flyers'.
Misuse of the Emergency Medical Services system: Frequent flyers and ambulance abusers

TMtR - I know.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Thank you.

But they wanted to do all those tests first.

You needed a clinic instead of an ER.

He needed a spare inhaler. I'm sure he has one now. He may of got quicker service if he had walked into a clinic, an asthma attack can be life threatening.

Pretty sure the treatment and the inhaler are using the same basic medicine, albuterol, just different delivery systems.

clearly not or my inhaler would have worked.

You can not visually see the medication in the inhaler and inhalers have a few problems that can make them ineffective. Plus, the dosage is better controlled and is a better delivery system with the "treatment" which is given via a nebulizer. The inhaler gives a limited saturation of the medication to you while the nebulizer gives you a lengthy saturation of the medication suspended in a mist. The difference is a few seconds of medication taken in a few puffs compared to a ten-minute or more continuous treatment that literally saturates your upper respiratory and lungs.
Hope this was a one time incident for you and the inhaler works OK for you now.

The medications are different as is the delivery.

I know, b/c I've been using an inhaler since before I can recall.


Whenever I move, I have issues in spring, so this is most likely a one off.

 

[danielpalos]

another leftist that is against freedom.


ever been to an ER during the day?


It's full of people sitting around waiting to get aspirin for cold or a Band-Aid for a minor cut.

and it you have an actual, painful problem, you have to wait your turn.

That is what affordable health care was supposed to alleviate.

Why is the right wing coming up with this type of solution, instead of ones that prevent the need for more expensive, emergency care for non-emergency issues.

politics and government is not the answer.

they made it worse all on their own.

People that can think, don't look to the government to fix the problems they caused, they look for other sources.

For modern health care in modern times?

Capitalism "died in 1929". Socialism has been bailing out capitalism, ever since.

 

[Penelope]

When Todd asked Black whether she would get rid of the law, she replied, “I would get rid of a law that says that you ― you are not allowed, as a health care professional, to make that decision about whether someone can be appropriately treated the next day, or at a walk-in clinic, or at their doctor.”

She's right. One of our local hospitals has basically two ER's - one a non-urgent care facility, and the other for urgent care.
btw - Insurance is useless if you can't afford to use it.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) will cause a major expansion of high-deductible health insurance, a fact that has received little attention but has substantial implications for patients, health care pro-viders, and employers. High-deductible health plans (HDHPs), often considered “blunt instruments” that indiscriminately reduce utilization of both appropriate and discretionary care, require annual out-of-pocket payments of $1,000 to $10,000 for many services before more comprehensive coverage begins.1 Unfortunately, large gaps remain in our understanding of HDHPs' effects on vulnerable populations, life-saving services, and health outcomes.2,3
MMS: Error

Medicaid recipients use more than 'their fair share' of ER services...the most expensive place to seek non-emergency services. But not for the Medicaid recipient.

Medicaid beneficiaries use the ED at an almost two-fold higher rate than the privately insured...

Frequent ED users are more likely to have poor physical and mental health, no usual source of care, higher-than-average utilization of other health services, and be dissatisfied with their medical care.12 While they may be a small group of people, they can account for a large share of costs. In Oregon, for instance, 50% of ED expenses in Oregon could be attributed to 3% of the Medicaid population (~16,000 individuals).

https://www.medicaid.gov/Federal-Policy-Guidance/Downloads/CIB-01-16-14.pdf

Medicaid Doubles ER Use

According to the report, released in May, nearly one-third (32 percent) of Medicaid enrollees used the ER at least once during a 12-month period in 2007. Individuals with private health coverage were only about half as likely (17 percent) to visit an ER, and a similar proportion—one in five—of individuals without health coverage did so.

Medicaid enrollees were three times as likely (15 percent vs. 5 percent) as the privately insured, and twice as likely as the uninsured (15 percent vs. 7 percent), to have visited an ER twice in the previous year.
News - Report: Uninsured Emergency Room Use Greatly Exaggerated | Heartland Institute

Ask any first responder about 'frequent flyers'.
Misuse of the Emergency Medical Services system: Frequent flyers and ambulance abusers

TMtR - I know.

Correct, ins is useless if you can't afford to use it, but what have republicans done since the ACA, voted to repeal it.
If the Dems had had control, they would of worked on making the ins companies and drug companies cut prices. Also raising the fine for young people to enroll in the marketplace was needed. But GOP refused expanded Medicaid in their states, and bad mouthed the ACA since inception.

 

[SeaGal]

ACA is repealing itself - as designed by the Dems who had control, and wrote it with the input of union bosses, academics, insurance companies and pharma. It was a Trojan horse, and the dreaded insurance companies fell for it with the expectations of taxpayer funded bailouts...promised bailouts.

I agree that the mantra 'repeal and replace' was campaign rhetoric. Obamacare is so deeply intertwined with the spinal column of our healthcare delivery system...as designed... that only careful and thoughtful excision can remove the cancer without killing the patient.

We all know that single payer is the goal - a goal thwarted by other Dems. Do the research.

Medicare has unfunded liabilities in double digit trillions. Medicaid spending approaches 1 trillion annually. Neither one could exist without the taxpayer and the privately insured taking up the slack.

There are a few measures that might be worth looking into - the federal government maintains health insurance 'exchanges' for its employees...giving a choice between policy coverages among several different companies. The policies are not free - but the premium cost is mitigated at a ratio of about 40/60. Open that up to those whose employers don't provide health insurance. Strengthen HSA's, and catastrophic coverage choices. Choices will lower prices - choices of treatments, tests and drugs prescribed by physicians will help lower prices.

Reassess the FDA's method of approval of a drug, which can cause unnecessary delays and expenses. Mr sg uses an inhaler that costs $400.00 a month in the states, per his pulmonary doctor the same drug is only $10 in India. Why?

ACA wasn't an attempt to address the cost of healthcare - the intention was to involve the US taxpayer into paying more into the pockets of pharma and insurance companies. Wait until the Cadillac tax takes effect in the next couple of years - was supposed to have been implemented several years ago as a provision of ACA...and source of funding. Now, (wonder of wonders) some of the groups who helped draft the ACA, want that part repealed, as it should be.

 

[Penelope]

ACA is repealing itself - as designed by the Dems who had control, and wrote it with the input of union bosses, academics, insurance companies and pharma. It was a Trojan horse, and the dreaded insurance companies fell for it with the expectations of taxpayer funded bailouts...promised bailouts.

I agree that the mantra 'repeal and replace' was campaign rhetoric. Obamacare is so deeply intertwined with the spinal column of our healthcare delivery system...as designed... that only careful and thoughtful excision can remove the cancer without killing the patient.

We all know that single payer is the goal - a goal thwarted by other Dems. Do the research.

Medicare has unfunded liabilities in double digit trillions. Medicaid spending approaches 1 trillion annually. Neither one could exist without the taxpayer and the privately insured taking up the slack.

There are a few measures that might be worth looking into - the federal government maintains health insurance 'exchanges' for its employees...giving a choice between policy coverages among several different companies. The policies are not free - but the premium cost is mitigated at a ratio of about 40/60. Open that up to those whose employers don't provide health insurance. Strengthen HSA's, and catastrophic coverage choices. Choices will lower prices - choices of treatments, tests and drugs prescribed by physicians will help lower prices.

Reassess the FDA's method of approval of a drug, which can cause unnecessary delays and expenses. Mr sg uses an inhaler that costs $400.00 a month in the states, per his pulmonary doctor the same drug is only $10 in India. Why?

ACA wasn't an attempt to address the cost of healthcare - the intention was to involve the US taxpayer into paying more into the pockets of pharma and insurance companies. Wait until the Cadillac tax takes effect in the next couple of years - was supposed to have been implemented several years ago as a provision of ACA...and source of funding. Now, (wonder of wonders) some of the groups who helped draft the ACA, want that part repealed, as it should be.

why because the Reps want free market. If you are unaware that the Pubs were anti the ACA since inception and controlled the house and senate since 2012, and what Trump is doing to finally bring it to an end, well I guess you have not been paying attention.

Take away Medicaid and say good=bye to healthcare as we know it. The Cadillac tax is not going to take effect, and "Strengthen HSA's, and catastrophic coverage choices" is not going to help those on median income or lower.

 

[danielpalos]

Health care reform is just that, the democrats tried it, the republicans had nothing but repeal.

 

[Penelope]

Health care reform is just that, the democrats tried it, the republicans had nothing but repeal.

And nothing to replace it with.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

This is one nasty women in my opinion

She's a nasty woman for wanting to bring your health care costs down? EMTALA, while having a noble purpose, has been one of the driving factors in elevating health care costs in this country and resulted in many hospitals, particularly in rural areas, going bankrupt and closing down. Prior to EMTALA we didn't have people dying in the streets due to lack of treatment, but we had a lot more hospitals and ERs around for much cheaper cost. The problem with EMTALA is that people use the ER as their primary care facility and never pay the bill because they know they can't be turned away and that raises costs on the rest of us. I have a friend who is an ER nurse here in Las Vegas she was just telling my wife and I a month ago about a woman who has come into the ER at her hospital over 60 times in just this past year and there is nothing they can do about it. ER staff should have the authority to turn people away who are not in a true emergency. That's just plain common sense which is why you don't understand.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Health care reform is just that, the democrats tried it, the republicans had nothing but repeal.

And nothing to replace it with.

Replacing it with nothing is exactly what needs to happen. We need to get government and insurance mostly out of the equation altogether or you are never going to see health care costs drop.

 

[SeaGal]

why because the Reps want free market. If you are unaware that the Pubs were anti the ACA since inception and controlled the house and senate since 2012, and what Trump is doing to finally bring it to an end, well I guess you have not been paying attention..

One of us wasn't paying attention, true. The Dems lost the House in 2010 because of ACA - the way it was rammed down the throats of the public - and because it was primarily a payoff to those evil corporations and did little to address health care costs. However, contrary to popular misconception, the Dems held onto the Senate until 2015.

Take away Medicaid and say good=bye to healthcare as we know it. The Cadillac tax is not going to take effect, and "Strengthen HSA's, and catastrophic coverage choices" is not going to help those on median income or lower.

Enact Medicaid or Medicare for all and say good bye to healthcare as we know it...it will then devolve into a two tier system. There is no one-size-fits-all, as has already been pointed out. That was the failing of ACA - unintended or intentional, makes no difference. The result is the same.

 

[Penelope]

This is one nasty women in my opinion

She's a nasty woman for wanting to bring your health care costs down? EMTALA, while having a noble purpose, has been one of the driving factors in elevating health care costs in this country and resulted in many hospitals, particularly in rural areas, going bankrupt and closing down. Prior to EMTALA we didn't have people dying in the streets due to lack of treatment, but we had a lot more hospitals and ERs around for much cheaper cost. The problem with EMTALA is that people use the ER as their primary care facility and never pay the bill because they know they can't be turned away and that raises costs on the rest of us. I have a friend who is an ER nurse here in Las Vegas she was just telling my wife and I a month ago about a woman who has come into the ER at her hospital over 60 times in just this past year and there is nothing they can do about it. ER staff should have the authority to turn people away who are not in a true emergency. That's just plain common sense which is why you don't understand.

You must not remember what health ins use to be like before the ACA. I agree the costs need to be lower, but the GOP wants less coverage cheaper. Say goodbye to pre existing conditions unless you work for a large company. you will not be able to afford ins if you have any. That is just too bad about ER's , since the GOP has decided not to do a darn thing about health ins. or medication costs.

 

[Penelope]

why because the Reps want free market. If you are unaware that the Pubs were anti the ACA since inception and controlled the house and senate since 2012, and what Trump is doing to finally bring it to an end, well I guess you have not been paying attention..

One of us wasn't paying attention, true. The Dems lost the House in 2010 because of ACA - the way it was rammed down the throats of the public - and because it was primarily a payoff to those evil corporations and did little to address health care costs. However, contrary to popular misconception, the Dems held onto the Senate until 2015.

Take away Medicaid and say good=bye to healthcare as we know it. The Cadillac tax is not going to take effect, and "Strengthen HSA's, and catastrophic coverage choices" is not going to help those on median income or lower.

Enact Medicaid or Medicare for all and say good bye to healthcare as we know it...it will then devolve into a two tier system. There is no one-size-fits-all, as has already been pointed out. That was the failing of ACA - unintended or intentional, makes no difference. The result is the same.

The ACA and expanded Medicaid was not one size fits all. I doubt you know much about the ACA by the way you talk. The GOP doesn't have a plan, back to the same old garbage, and high prices, you have not seen anything yet, since they are free market , remember.

 

[Camp]

Most complaints about the ACA are red herrings. High healthcare costs are attributed to big pharma gouging us all. In addition, pig pharma is responsible for the most serious drug problem in this country.

Big Pharma executive boards should be dragged out of their country clubs, mansions, yachts, and board meetings and taken behind the woodshed to be shot. If a woodshed is not available anyplace will work just fine.

 

[MadChemist]

LET THEM DIE!

The republican party is the party of satan.

No. That is not what she is saying. She is saying that the ER is not the appropriate place to go for a cold.

Well you take away the ACA and expanded Medicaid, that is what she is saying. Let them die.

That is simply not true.

What she is saying is that doctors should be able to make the call. Hospitals should be able to tell you that if you have a cold, you can call your doctor if you are not in deep distress.

Emergency Rooms are for emergencies.

You'd think that would be easy to understand.

 

[dblack]

LET THEM DIE!

The republican party is the party of satan.

The thing is, lately it's mostly liberals I hear bitching about EMTALA. It really brings out their "inner selfish prick".

 

[dblack]

LET THEM DIE!

The republican party is the party of satan.

No. That is not what she is saying. She is saying that the ER is not the appropriate place to go for a cold.

Well you take away the ACA and expanded Medicaid, that is what she is saying. Let them die.

Let them die? I don't know about anyone else, but I have never said "let them die". In fact, I have only spoken out against the use of the ER for things that are certainly NOT emergencies. And if the ER is clogged with colds, earaches, or the flu (for otherwise healthy adults) it increases the chance a real emergency will not get the proper care. THAT is far more likely to kill someone.

The "Let Them Die" thing is a by-product of their fixation on government as the only way to solve social problems. In their worldview, if you are opposed to using government to solve a problem, it can only mean you don't want the problem solved! If you don't want government taking over health care, it means you want people to die.

 

[JoeB131]

The "Let Them Die" thing is a by-product of their fixation on government as the only way to solve social problems. In their worldview, if you are opposed to using government to solve a problem, it can only mean you don't want the problem solved! If you don't want government taking over health care, it means you want people to die.

No, it just means you are indifferent to it if it happens, and that's even a little worse.

The thing is, the hospitals WILL let people die if they weren't required to treat them. As it stands now, they give the minimum of care and then ship them off to somewhere else, which is how you have poor people having limbs amputated when they could be saved and shit like that.

Either health care is a commodity to be bought and sold, and if you can't afford it, fuck you.

or

It's a basic human right, and has to be provided by whatever means works.

so which is it?