I should mention that SSI benefits are paid out of the general fund as those recipients never pay any, or too little, FICA taxes.
Originally Posted by Susanann
Additionally, it is against the law for a hospital to refuse treatment of anyone, so free heath care can also be obtained by anyone coming into the hospital ER
Federal law requires hospitals admit all patients, even poor people with no money. In practice, the ER rooms of most hospitals are filled with poor people, mostly immigrants legal and illegal, who come in for the slightest things such as their children have the flu. Poor people, people who choose not to buy health insurance, and immigrants are treated by the hospitals and the costs of such treatment are “absorbed” by hospital and spread out so that the paying patients end up paying for those who cant or dont want to pay. The** “absorbing”** of the costs of freeloaders is a main reason why health care costs so much in the United States because the paying patients are paying for both themselves and also paying for the freeloaders.
Even people who are able to pay, but dont want to pay, or dont want to buy health insurance, can and do get away with not paying at all for their treatment by just refusing to give identification so they cant be billed by the hospital.
Poor people and immigrants commonly consider any ailment to be an** “emergency”**, including a child with the sniffles. There are so many millions of people who dont pay that habitually come to the ER that hospitals dont even try anymore to turn away the tidal wave of uninsured that flood the ER rooms each and every day.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/KnowYourRights/KnowYourEmergencyRoomRights.aspx
***Federal law gives you the right to emergency care, regardless of your ability to pay. Here are the details on how you should be handled at the hospital.
Fortunately, a federal law passed in 1986 to prohibit a practice commonly known as “patient dumping” gives you the right to emergency care regardless of your ability to pay. The federal law applies to hospitals that participate in Medicare – and that includes most hospitals in the United States. ***
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] 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.
EMTALA applies to “participating hospitals”, i.e., those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program. However, in practical terms, EMTALA applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S., with the exception of the Shriners Hospitals for Children, Indian Health Service hospitals, and Veterans Affairs hospitals[citation needed]. The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004,[2] or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA’s provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients.[3][4]
If hospitals treat people for “the slightest things” without regard for ability to pay, that is of their own volition and is not required by federal law.
The problem is, that the admitting nurse does not know if the problem is serious or not until the doctor sees the patient. The amount of time and resources used to find out if it is serious or not the economic damage and hospital resources has already been done and used up, and the care has essentially mostly been given. How does the hospital know if it is required by the federal law or not until the examination is already done and complete?
Besides, you would have to argue with each of hundreds of Mexicans who speak only Spanish. It would take more time and cost more than it would for the doctor to treat them.
Also, it would take a lawyer and a court of law to finally determine if it was required by law, or not required by law. In practice, the hospital cant take the risk, esp since the doctor has already spent the time.
Bottom line, the hospital sees and treats all people who wont or dont want to pay, if for no other reason then the hospital does not want to risk violating a law arguing if any one of hundreds of thousands of cases are legally required or not. Bottom line is free health care at all hospital ER and all of the poor and all of the legal and illegal immigrants know this.
Multiply this out by 40 million uninusred and you will see why the health care costs of those that do pay are so high.
Only hundreds? Sounds like the immigration issue is a little less extensive than I was led to believe.
I almost never do this, but here ya go: :rolleyes:
mmm
The cringing and bigoted language aside, this isn’t even true. EMTALA only requires hospitals to treat patients with “emergency medical conditions”, which have a specific definition and are determined by the hospital, not by the patient. The condition must be presenting with symptoms that are, in the doctor’s opinion, acute and serious, and likely to result in serious dysfunction of bodily organs without immediate medical treatment. If one of these “Mexicans who only speak Spanish” comes in saying their child has the sniffles, they’ll be sent back out the door: despite your unsupported claims, emergency rooms do not regularly treat patients who don’t have EMCs anyway because it’s “easier than arguing with them”, because that runs directly contrary to their financial interest.
It sounds like you’re making an argument for universal healthcare.
spam reported.