Fischer: Let Hospitals Refuse Treatment to Emergency Room Patients

[YWD67]

Ok, I want those who think that everyone is responsible for their own actions to address this. That goes for Dem. Rep. Lib, Tea. etc.

Just be cautioned that using anything but facts that a poster knows to be true and not some BS from a think tank they agree with will be slammed. Caution!! I am living this kind of problem right know.
BRING IT ON!!!!!!
More



It seems that Bryan Fischer considers himself to be something of an expert when it comes to the issue of medicine and healthcare.
For example, just last week he has informed us that Bill Clinton was responsible for a rise in oral cancer. And before that, he was explaining that AIDS is not caused by HIV , but rather by rampant drug use and promiscuity among gay men and that if they would only stop having sex, God would be able to cure the disease.
So it only stands to reason that he would also have some thoughts on how to get healthcare costs under control by allowing hospitals to refuse treatment to those who show up in the emergency room:

I submit that we will never get health care costs under control until the federal law is repealed that mandates - there's that word again - that emergency rooms treat everybody who shows up regardless of ability to pay.
Hospitals should be allowed to set their own policies for services just like all other businesses, none of whom are forced to sell cars, food, or clothes to people who can't pay for them. Hospitals can develop a fund to which generous members of the community can contribute to cover genuine health care emergencies for the indigent.
Many people are now using emergency rooms like corner medical clinics, for routine, non-emergency care, because they know they can get care that somebody else will be obligated to pay for.

[drtoker]

I think there is a huge difference in refusing treatment for routine non-emergency care, and refusing any care to some one who can not afford care.
I do believe that non-emergencies (both poor and rich people alike) should be pointed to the nearest clinic, if possible (time of day, distance, etc), but how to accomplish that via policy would be messy at best. Non-emergency care at ER's is one of the contributing factors to our out of control health care costs, and it is not only done by poor people. People with insurance do it too, adding to the higher costs for insurance companies ($1000 bill for an ER visit, $80 for a doctor to look at something routine). Lets not forget that every person who is in the ER for a non-emergency is taking resources and time away from actual emergency cases. I can't even begin to tell you how often we've waited HOURS to even see a doctor in the ER and we were in an emergency situation.

[YWD67]

OK, drt, that is a fair and informed responce on your part (one expects nothing less here at the old Zipper whether I agree with it or not). Yet you did not address the issue with those who had real medical needs and no kind of health care plan. You just pointed out the abusers and leeches of the system.

I am talking about and addressing those people who are unemployed because of being let go from their job by no fault of their own. Such as those suffering job loss from the slow economy and growth in general.

People that can not afford Cobra insurance but are trying to improve themselves after suffering such finacial loss. People who walk into a medical facility needing care for something that is life threatening.

Ron Paul and other constitutionalist really avoid addressing issues where people are facing medical life threatening issues that are not the result of their so called bad decisions making.

Once again, my family is living this kind of issue and can support it with actual facts.

[drtoker]

I may not have been clear, but my position is this; if it is an emergency situation then yes everyone should receive care regardless of financial status. The problem then becomes, what constitutes an emergency?
Right now you can get service even in a non-emergency situtation. I do not agree with this, but do not see a 'policy' helping this by defining emergencies. Static polices are no good, as certain exceptions can always come into play, and then you can't do anything due to policy. Leave it up to staff, and you bring in human error and bias into the situation, this could also be a huge problem.

I think that is why we are where we are. All or none so to speak. Its not perfect, but people are getting the care they need (or want...).

Probably the best solution (which wouldn't work because people are idiots) would be education. Don't go to the fucking ER for a cold FFS, go to the doctor. I don't care if you are broke, most respectable offices work on a sliding scale. My Dr is $80 at the top end, less on the sliding scale. If you are really that broke that you can't afford $25-$50, prove it and I'm sure they will work with you if you are in need of care.

End result: all emergencies taken care of at hospitals and non-critical care is done at Dr offices.

[YWD67]

I may not have been clear, but my position is this; if it is an emergency situation then yes everyone should receive care regardless of financial status. The problem then becomes, what constitutes an emergency?
Right now you can get service even in a non-emergency situtation. I do not agree with this, but do not see a 'policy' helping this by defining emergencies. Static polices are no good, as certain exceptions can always come into play, and then you can't do anything due to policy. Leave it up to staff, and you bring in human error and bias into the situation, this could also be a huge problem.

I think that is why we are where we are. All or none so to speak. Its not perfect, but people are getting the care they need (or want...).

Probably the best solution (which wouldn't work because people are idiots) would be education. Don't go to the fucking ER for a cold FFS, go to the doctor. I don't care if you are broke, most respectable offices work on a sliding scale. My Dr is $80 at the top end, less on the sliding scale. If you are really that broke that you can't afford $25-$50, prove it and I'm sure they will work with you if you are in need of care.

End result: all emergencies taken care of at hospitals and non-critical care is done at Dr offices.

Educating people is great. However with the kind of problems that are facing the medical world with those that have more then just a smidgen of knowledge it is a wild idea to think that the average Joe can handle such.

Who is to say that a couple who brings in their child suffer a cough and a 102 degree temp is not suffering from pneumonic bubonic septicemic?

Unless test are run the attending doc does not know. Yet the asshole rep. bemoaning such visits calls them frivolous.

The capitalisim (for profit by taking actual doctors out of the decision making part of the industry) of the health care industury created the current problem.
Not the people who require the care.
Now lets look at your "go to the doctor instead" for a possible cold and sniffle illness.

Lets say that the patient is a three year old girl. The parent of said child had insurace that required a $15 co-pay. That is just about the average wouldn't you say?
Now what about the parent not having anykind of healthcare plan? Due to non-employment and can not afford anykind of healthcare plan? One can not just jump into Medicade can one?
One must now jump through dozens of of BS to get such. All becuse many of those that can afford healthcare rant against those that can't afford it. Those that can afford want to deny those that can not do such.

You state that doctors (I assume that you have dealt wtih) would "possibly" (not would) bill on an income curve.

You stated that you are "sure" they work with the parents. Do you know this as a fact or are just apply your own morally acquired belief?

I can show how such thinking is really delusional on your part based on the on going incident with me.

[drtoker]

I agree completely that education is not going to fix the issue, however, if people would stop and think, it would greatly help. That was my point as much as its moot.

As far as deciding what is an emergency, that is the crux. I do not think there is anyway to categorize 'emergency care' without excluding some one or another who doesn't fit exactly into the definition and needs critical care non the less. As I stated, I think that is the main reason we are using the current system of help anyone who comes in, no one is excluded who shouldn't be.

To your sliding scale and assistance questions with regards to doctors. I've had a few 'family' doctors here in this state. Every single one worked on a sliding scale. I do not think its required, but I've yet to run into any that I visit that do not take income into consideration while billing. On the same note, both members of my family and myself have been to doctors in this state while either unemployed, or while living in a situation where money for care is just not an option. Yes, it took some time talking to the office managers and staff, but each of us was able to receive the care we needed without visiting a hospital and without an unrealistic (for us at the time) payment if needed. In my case I gave them $5, the money I had in my pocket at the time I went in. Never got a bill for anything from the doctors office for that visit.

Does my above situation happen everywhere in every city? Probably not. However a lot of people are unwilling to even try and communicate their issues. I'm not pointing at you or anyone specific, but this again goes back to education. If Joe Schmoe has no money and needs non critical care, it seems he is more likely as an average american to just go to the ER rather than make a few phone calls first. Education is key, and policy/law changes will only lead to some people not getting care they need, where now they can.

My stance is, unless a unique policy comes into play that is all inclusive and does not turn anyone away from emergency care if needed, then things need to stay as is. Continue with education until a solution is found.

[YWD67]

I agree completely that education is not going to fix the issue, however, if people would stop and think, it would greatly help. That was my point as much as its moot.

As far as deciding what is an emergency, that is the crux. I do not think there is anyway to categorize 'emergency care' without excluding some one or another who doesn't fit exactly into the definition and needs critical care non the less. As I stated, I think that is the main reason we are using the current system of help anyone who comes in, no one is excluded who shouldn't be.

To your sliding scale and assistance questions with regards to doctors. I've had a few 'family' doctors here in this state.

A few, compaired to the majority or what?
What "STATE" do you live in?

[drtoker]

I only have knowledge of the offices I have personally visited, not every office across the state, so no help there from me. But I'd find it statistically odd if 100% of the offices I visited randomly did a sliding scale and financial assistance, while still being in the minority of offices in the state... I'd wager a majority of offices here offer this, obviously I'm going out on a limb here. I'm in Colorado.

[carpefile]

Medicaid. Yes, I know, they make you prove you need it. Its not that hard to prove if you actually do. Paul actually does address this issue, on a number of fronts. Medical savings accounts, transportable healthcare, individual healthcare tax credits, interstate competition. All of these are part of the solution. Most urgent care clinics in my state will work with your ability to pay, but nothing is free. Treating patients costs money.