DC Tom Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 That's very unfortunate. You'd think serious injuries, whatever they are, would be assisted by someone. Church. Civic organizations. Non profits. What kind of serious injuries are we talking about? I should have said "conditions". Two are broken bones - one a leg fracture, one a displaced fracture of the wrist, both debilitating since they weren't properly taken care of. The third...severe GI pain and weight loss in a patient with a family history of GI cancer, for which no one will perform any tests...but she can have all the pain meds she wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 I was turned away from an emergency room in CA because my doctor wasn't affiliated with the hospital. At that time I was new to the area and didn't have a doctor yet but I did have health insurance and a very painful kidney stone. Just pass it you pansy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Just pass it you pansy. I think the thought of 3rd passing it brings a smile to all of our faces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 I think the thought of 3rd passing it brings a smile to all of our faces. One almost wishes the kidney stone would post instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Just pass it you pansy. I hear the smaller the pecker the harder they are to pass... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 then they broke the law under EMTALA. er's can not refuse emergency care. they can refuse your insurance. it appears you're not going to reply, so i will. you were willing to forgo care for a very painful problem because of cost. and you have insurance and thewrefore, presumably a job that pays better than minimum wage. ya think there's more thasn a few people in low paying jobs without insurance and serious problems who also choose to forgo care because of cost? just because they're poor, the hospitals don't just say "this one's on me". they go after the money (at unnegotiated, ridiculous prices) using every available tactic including wage garnishment and collection agencies. if the pt had any credit before he's unlikely to after this. and i don't blame the hospitals for doing this. it's how the system is designed - to dysfunction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 then they broke the law under EMTALA. er's can not refuse emergency care. they can refuse your insurance. They sent me away to another hospital. At the time a nurse at the other hospital said as soon as she saw me she knew what was wrong with me because I had the kidney stone walk, or something to that affect. I didn't have a clue what was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 They sent me away to another hospital. At the time a nurse at the other hospital said as soon as she saw me she knew what was wrong with me because I had the kidney stone walk, or something to that affect. I didn't have a clue what was wrong. but you weren't forced to transfer, were you? they didn't refuse to treat you at the first er, right? the transfer was done because of payment issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 One almost wishes the kidney stone would post instead. Or pass him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 then they broke the law under EMTALA. er's can not refuse emergency care. they can refuse your insurance. Wait...aren't "care" and "insurance" the same thing? That's the whole basis of the ACA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 it appears you're not going to reply, so i will. you were willing to forgo care for a very painful problem because of cost. and you have insurance and thewrefore, presumably a job that pays better than minimum wage. ya think there's more thasn a few people in low paying jobs without insurance and serious problems who also choose to forgo care because of cost? just because they're poor, the hospitals don't just say "this one's on me". they go after the money (at unnegotiated, ridiculous prices) using every available tactic including wage garnishment and collection agencies. if the pt had any credit before he's unlikely to after this. and i don't blame the hospitals for doing this. it's how the system is designed - to dysfunction. Didn't see this before when I posted. I did go to the other hospital and I did pass it while in the ex-ray room. For all you other guys with your get well soon sentiments and speculation on the size of my pecker---mlm to you. There's a reason for my screen name and it doesn't have anything to do with football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 There's a reason for my screen name and it doesn't have anything to do with football. 3rd enlargement surgery and it's finally long? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 but you weren't forced to transfer, were you? they didn't refuse to treat you at the first er, right? the transfer was done because of payment issues. It had nothing to do with pay or insurance. They immediately asked me if my doctor was affiliated with the hospital. When I told them I didn't have a doctor yet, they said they couldn't treat me and suggested the other hospital in town. 3rd enlargement surgery and it's finally long? My ex wife's 3rd husband and................... You over-loquacious jerk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Wait...aren't "care" and "insurance" the same thing? That's the whole basis of the ACA. no, they're not the same thing. you don't need insurance to get basic care in a government run system. try to keep up. It had nothing to do with pay or insurance. They immediately asked me if my doctor was affiliated with the hospital. When I told them I didn't have a doctor yet, they said they couldn't treat me and suggested the other hospital in town. then you have grounds for a complaint of an EMTALA violation against the hospital. it's a serious offense that could bring serious disciplinary action against the hospital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 no, they're not the same thing. you don't need insurance to get basic care in a government run system. try to keep up. then you have grounds for a complaint of an EMTALA violation against the hospital. it's a serious offense that could bring serious disciplinary action against the hospital. Past the statute of limitations I'm sure. Don't even remember the name of the hospital and certainly not the names of any of the people involved. Maybe Tom knows................. : devil: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 no, they're not the same thing. you don't need insurance to get basic care in a government run system. try to keep up. Yeah...I was making the point that they're not the same thing, yet you're now treating them as not the same thing while you've been arguing forever that they are the same thing in the ACA. So which is it? Are they different, and the claim that the ACA addresses health care costs is complete bull ****? Or are they the same, and the ACA addresses health care costs because it makes insurance more affordable? You can be wrong now, or wrong before. Your choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Yeah...I was making the point that they're not the same thing, yet you're now treating them as not the same thing while you've been arguing forever that they are the same thing in the ACA. So which is it? Are they different, and the claim that the ACA addresses health care costs is complete bull ****? Or are they the same, and the ACA addresses health care costs because it makes insurance more affordable? You can be wrong now, or wrong before. Your choice. in a system of private payors and for profit medicine they are the same. that is what our bastardized system is, even after the aca. in a better system, that we should be striving to acheive, they are not the same. again, try to keep up. Past the statute of limitations I'm sure. Don't even remember the name of the hospital and certainly not the names of any of the people involved. Maybe Tom knows................. : devil: don't believe there is a staute of limitations for an EMTALA complaint. you're not gonna get anything out of it except the satisfaction of the hospital being disciplined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 in a system of private payors and for profit medicine they are the same. And that's the system 3rdnlng was in...where you said they were different. So which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Plus it's not that absurd to begin with guys. They DO do a lot. You can't sit there and acknowledge how complicated the medical services sector is and then roll over and say the insurance companies do nothing. There are large administrative costs. And you can't sit there and say "yes, we need to work on transitioning pay structures and experiment with different ideas to control costs" and then say "the insurance companies do nothing." Not to mention it stayed private...so there are marketing costs as they compete with each other. And then yes, God forbid they take a profit which for most insurance companies is about 2%...putting it at the low end of all business. Don't demonize the insurance companies. They're the most picked on group in this whole mess and the damned truth is it's more the government and the medical providers that have ****ed up everything in the past. There is a lot of stuff here that will nudge (probably not enough) the doctors/hospitals and some serious stuff that will attempt to remedy the mistakes in the way medicare has paid stuff out as quickly as possible...so they're working on it as are the insurance companies...but you shouldn't demonize the insurance companies for making 2% profit and b/c you don't understand where the 20% on that dollar goes. How much off a $15K 12 hour hospital stay where the patient gets fluids and a Xanex do you think went to "patient care?" 20%? Yeah, insurance companies are the poor victims here. Give me a break! How much of that $15K 12 hour hospital stay example do you think any provider gets? That Xanax and fluids probably costs more than the provider makes. Do you realize that providers' salaries in total account for 10% of health care costs, while another 10% goes towards operational costs? That means there is another 80% being spent on health care that isn't related to providers (and the 10% spent on operational costs cannot be reduced much further than it is). What's being done to address it in Obamacare? Here's a hint: nothing. The only thing that's being done is squeezing down that 10% from providers, to the point that you're going to see a shortage of them, which will be compounded by the alleged 30M new insured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 And that's the system 3rdnlng was in...where you said they were different. So which is it? i'm hoping your the only one who can't comprehend this. in the current for profit system, even after the aca, insurance and care are closely related. many people without insurance get inadequate care. the aca extends insurance to millions of people affording more of those people care. basic care and insurance would be unrelated in a true socialized medicine model. there. did you get the answer you were looking to ensnare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts