No. Hospitals that participate in Medicare/Medicaid are required to treat indigent patients for free. Hospitals that do not are exempt from EMTALA.
I was not aware of that.
Thanks.
Don’t feel bad. For about thirty seconds I was thinking, “hmmm. That really blows a huge hole in my argument,” until I remembered how the EMTALA worked. 
That’s fair.
I would say that as a practical matter, someone can be happy with a shitty insurance plan, because it’s giving them a false sense of security. In actual fact, something that seems like good coverage could destroy them financially.
But yeah, it looks like Obama was speaking in absolutes, which is often a bad idea.
Did you understand the term “perverse incentive”? The law incentivizes something that the lawmakers did not intend.
So why don’t you buy food insurance then? Can you live without food? The point you are missing is that insurance is a way of pooling risk for things we can’t normally afford.
Most people can’t afford treatment for cancer, but most people can afford paying for an annual check-up. It makes no sense to “pool risk” for something that everybody should do every year, like an annual check-up and that most people can afford.
John, your cited link about “preventive care” is somewhat misleading. The article examines the effectiveness of, say, screening healthy patients for diseases they most likely do not have. That’s pretty fair stretch from treating patients who are not feeling well before their disease becomes far worse. Quite different, I’m sure you’ll agree.
If you want to be spoon fed, so you shall: read just one post, the OP. It’s at the top of Page 1. It even has a little “1” at the upper right.
Now, I’ll ask you again, given the weight of the evidence, and the analysis of the Washington Post, do you think it’s safe to say that Obama lied to us, repeatedly, about this.
That does answer the question, thank you.
These are judgement calls, where it’s difficult to come in and say the “Bob should not have had that test.” Another aspect of this is doctors’ malpractice insurance. From what I’ve read, doctor’s are inclined to have a patient go through all kinds of test because it protects him down the roped if there’s a law suit.
Now, perhaps you can answer mine?
But isn’t that what happens at most annual wellness exams - screening for diseases that a healthy person isn’t likely to have? Those are the exams that are required to be covered at 100%. If you’re feeling sick, your budget insurance (even under the ACA) is probably going to require money out of your own pocket, money the poor can’t afford to pay until the symptoms and the disease get far worse.
I would be in favor of more education (and maybe the ACA includes it - I honestly don’t know) when it comes to illness. In this country, going to a doctor is usually a last resort, not in small part due to cost I’m sure. I spent a summer in China once and while I was there, I came down with a cold. My interpreter insisted that I see a doctor, which I thought was crazy. If we can get doctor’s visits paid for somewhere between those two extremes, I think that society would greatly benefit.
If you make up your mind about controversies by listening to, or reading, the speeches of politicians, your decisions will not be informed. And I think just about everyone knows that. You listen to a President making a case to see how the case is made. But to find out what the facts are, you read a good newspaper, or perhaps consult a health web site that avoids ax-grinding.
I think “preventive care” is screening healthy people, not catching diseases early. Preventive, to me, means you don’t ever get the disease in the first place. Am I wrong?
Former CBS poster child for Obamacare’s abuses now calls Obamacare a “blessing in disguse.”
This is a distinction without a difference.
Medicare funds the vast majority of residency training in the US.* This tax-based financing covers resident salaries and benefits through payments called Direct Medical Education payments. As a result, any halfway good hospital can’t just stop taking medicare because they lose money. They would instantly lose their only source of moderately paid MD’s, and then lose even more money.
As for hospitals which have no residency programs, they utterly lack prestige and thus are the last places which could exist without government funds. The system is set so that unless a hospital is completely run by the government, it has to treat seriously ill patients for free. Hospitals like the Shriners are not real examples of exempt institutions because they gain their exemption by being free to everyone.
- The rest is funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense, which are also exempt from EMTALA.
You’re both right–there are degrees of prevention.
Primary prevention is prevention that happens before there’s any disease, like a vaccine or safe sex education. Secondary prevention is meant to diagnose and treat existing diseases before they cause problems, like with a mammogram or a colonoscopy. Tertiary prevention is meant to mitigate further effects from existing and apparent disease–think diabetes education or anticoagulating someone with atrial fibrillation.
“Preventive care” often refers to primary and secondary prevention, just because tertiary prevention encompasses so much of the rest of what we do, but it doesn’t necessarily. I think most of the “preventive care” services required to be covered by the ACA fall into the primary and secondary categories.
Well, that anecdote proves it!
I’m not required to have car insurance to drive on public roads. I do, and I think it’s foolish not to, but there’s no law that says I have to have it. Anyone who doesn’t want to have to have car insurance to drive is free to move to NH to avoid needing to. Can’t do that with a federal mandate like Obamacare has, though.
Proves what?
In addition, please provide the data you must have that allows you the liberty to comment so. Otherwise, I assume that if I scroll back through your posts here, I will find no anecdotes or unsupported opinion in this thread with your name on it.
Seems like you think your role here is to provide silly sniping. Bang up job so far, buddy.
I think you don’t understand the debate here. The president said no one would have to give up a policy that they liked. No one. To disprove that, all one needs is to show that one person lost a policy they liked, It matters not one whit if there are thousands of people how didn’t lose a policy they liked. Because the prez said no one would. Period.
Now, you can say that that doesn’t matter, because who cares about one person compared to thousands. But that’s not the debate in this thread. If you want to debate a different topic, then you should open a different thread.