Did you read your own cite? Especially the parts about it being only truly emergency care, and EMTALA applies to “participating hospitals.”?
One thing has nothing to do with the other. I pay a lot of tax.
Looking at Wiki, it looks a lot like what you all are saying here that Obamacare has become, and that it didn’t work that well but cost quite a bit of money, a goodly amount from the feds.
As an aside, despite the title of this thread, I am neither a liberal nor conservative. Not a Democrat nor a Republican.
Uh, OK, sorry to use an antique phrase there. How about “I understood from what had been said previously in the Pit that Obamacare was patterned after an overseas health care system such as the NHS”. Better?
Zero wishful thinking since I think the NHS is awful. Perhaps Obamacare, or what was prior to that, was going to be patterned after it, or I am remembering a post from someone who wanted it to be that way, or someone with bad info. It’s not like me not knowing the details of OC is going to crash us into the sun or something.
Name one hospital with an emergency room that is not a ‘participating hospital’. They are exceedingly rare. If they take Medicare or Medicaid patients, they are participating.
Yes, I did. But to understand it, you have to read the whole article. If you go to a hospital in the US that is not a Shriner’s, Indian Health Service, or Veteran’s Affairs (citation needed), it’s a participating hospital.
Did you know that the drinking age is mandated to be 21 only in states that *participate *in receiving federal highway funds? So 18-20 year olds can always go to states where they don’t do that!
PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL OF THEM DO THAT.
ALL OF THE STATES. ALL.
IT WAS SIGNED INTO LAW BY REAGAN.
RONALD REAGAN.
THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN.
YES, HE WAS SO A REPUBLICAN.
Those of you who are not curlcoat probably knew all of that and can ignore this message. Now that the facts have been yelled at her we should only have to deal with a few instances of her not quite getting the idea that a Republican signed a law, that it was sponsored by a Democrat, and that states actually agreed to follow it.
Oh who am I kidding, but, y’know, I just had to try one more time. The coin has to end up on its edge eventually.
I don’t think any of the local ones take Medicaid patients but then I haven’t been to all of them. But this is kind of turning into a strawman - how many people is the average hospital going to get who are there with a qualifying emergency, but don’t have any sort of coverage? That was the original claim, that it costs the taxpayer more to fund emergencies for those without money or insurance, than to give them all coverage.
Again, whether something was sponsored or signed into law or whatever by a Republican or a Democrat is for me immaterial since I am neither. I haven’t yelled this - is that what is necessary for you to see and understand it?
BG, thanks for serving as a classic example of liberal stupidity in this thread.
Given the period of 2010-2012 seems to have slipped from your mind, chances are good the 80’s are long gone as well.
Not just Medicaid, any CMS reimbursement - meaning Medicare too. There are essentially no public hospitals in the US which do not accept Medicare. The Shriners Hospitals are now participating because their endowment isn’t big enough to provide all care for free anymore.
You really are astonishingly oblivious as to how far your head is shoved up your ass. Some say you can see your own tonsils, and have almost collected the brains to count how many you have. Good luck.
There’s a sorcerous tortoise in some nearby universe shaking his head and muttering, “Is that asshole STILL using my name? I need to find an interdimensional lawyer…”
Liberals are often accused of being “pro-crime”. Usually, this charge is a canard. Usually…
That’s very, very, illegal and if you can prove it happens you should report it.
…not saying it doesn’t happen, just that you should report it if you see it.
It’s certainly not illegal for hospitals to discharge or otherwise get rid of non-paying customers, if they are medically stable. We can perhaps debate the definition of “stable”, but in general if they’re not in danger of short-term death due to the lack of medical treatment, they can be put out on the street.
Admittedly it is a dumb idea, and is sponsored by the Obama administration which some would call liberal, but I kind of doubt that conservatives will take the pot sellers side of things. So I’m not sure we can count it as a stupid liberal idea.
Well, it seems the jackoffs in the Senate have done it again. It’s not just that they haven’t passed a budget bill since 2009; that’s irresponsible enough. But it looks that they are apparently doing it deliberately so that they can cause these continual budget crises, then sit back and blame the Republicans for them.
This is performance art, right Clothy?
I mean, even you can’t be dumb enough to believe what you just typed, can you?
Pure comedy gold, as usual!
Actually, Harry Reid has been trying to get a conference committee going for months to deal with the budget impasse. The Republicans keep refusing. Until last night, at the last minute.
Yeah, it’s pretty clear who the jackoffs are in this situation.
You have been misinformed, again: