Sorry, it is against the law to refuse an emergency admission in any hospital. They must be treated, stabilized first. Then they can transfer them to another hospital.
What Are the Consequences of Obama Failing?
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
Sorry, it is against the law to refuse an emergency admission in any hospital. They must be treated, stabilized first. Then they can transfer them to another hospital.
Lots of things are against the law. Whether they get enforced is another issue worthy of debate.
It probably happens from time to time, petros. Only it is not publicized all that much. And I can understand hospitals turning away those who can’t pay. Hospitals are strapped for cash, same as everybody else. And doctors, nurses, support staff etc. have to be paid; they are hardly going to go without money just because the patient cannot pay.
So at the end of the day it is the hospital that is out of pocket.
Quite so, petros. And you can be sure that hospital is not going to say that they are turning away the patient because he cannot pay. They will make up some other excuse, they are full, they don’t have a bed, they don’t have the expertise, the facilities to treat the patient, they don’t have the required medications etc. Anything except the real reason.
I don’t know, if they treat a patient who cannot pay, can they bill the state for that? Or does the hospital have to absorb the loss? I am not sure what the law is in the matter.
But it is quite possible that hospital has to absorb the loss. If they get reimbursed by the state, I see no reason to turn a patient away.
It's the scale of the reimbursement. A hotel/spa style hospital isn't going to be paid it's full rates and will get the same as what a county or faith based NPO hospital will so why bother opening the doors?
To quote me #621 "They must be treated, stabilized first. Then they can transfer them to another hospital." As for stories not making it to the papers, everything that happens locally makes the news. Letting somebody die or refusing care is big news.
They do bill the State, Medicaid is mostly a State funded program.
"Medicaid is the United States health program for eligible individuals and families with low incomes and resources. It is a means-tested program that is jointly funded by the states and federal government."
Medicaid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What really is the difference who pays, federal goverment alone, or in conjunction with the state?
They do bill the State, Medicaid is mostly a State funded program.
"Medicaid is the United States health program for eligible individuals and families with low incomes and resources. It is a means-tested program that is jointly funded by the states and federal government."
Medicaid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What really is the difference who pays, federal goverment alone, or in conjunction with the state?
Emergency vehicles do not usually drop emergency patients off at "hotel style/spa hospital", they do have a list of hospitals they drop people off starting with trauma centers first. Every EMS pickup is not a emergency.
That might fly until the person in line behind him has the identical ailment.
Lets not forget the high survival rates for all forms of cancer.
Study Shows U.S., Japan, and France Have Highest Cancer Survival Rates.
Cancer Survival Rates Vary by Country
A STUDY in a journal, the Lancet Oncology, compares cancer survival rates across five continents for the first time. After adjusting country data, from the 1990s, for differences in both age and death rates in the general population, Americans were found to have the best chance of survival for two of the five cancers that the reasearchers considered: breast cancer in women and prostate cancer. (Cuba had impressive survival rates, but these were probably over-estimated, say researchers). Europe lags behind America, with wide differences in survival rates, ranging from 10% for breast cancer to 34% for prostate cancer. Money appears to be an important factor: America spends a greater proportion of national income on health than the other countries.
Health care | You get what you pay for | Economist.com
United States
The American Cancer Society estimates that 93% of Americans diagnosed with stage 1 colon cancer are still alive five years after their diagnosis. The five-year survival rates for more advanced stages are as follows:
- Stage 2A: 85%
- Stage 2B: 72%
- Stage 3A: 83%
- Stage 3B: 64%
- Stage 3C: 44%
- Stage 4: 8%
Colon Cancer Survival Rates in Different Countries
Why do or should we mess with this. You get what you pay for.
I have seen the cancer study before ironsides. However, it leaves a few questions unanswered. It shows you the survival rate among those diagnose with Stage 1 or Stage 2 cancer. However it does not tell us what proportion of cancers were detected at Stage 1 and Stage 2, and what proportions were detected at Stages 3 and 4.
Now, I am only guessing here, but my guess would be that more cases are detected at stages 1 and 2 in Europe and Canada, compared to USA, and more cases are detected at Stages 3 and 4 in USA, compared to Europe and Canada. The reason I say this is that preventative medicine is lot less prevalent in USA compared to other counties (in USA there usually would be a co-payment, which is not present in other countries; it probably acts as a disincentive.
If that is the case, the study gives us only incomplete picture. Incidentally, the study also says that survival rates are high in Canada and Australia.
Second point is, cancer survival is only part of the story. This probably shows that USA spends a lot more on cancer than other countries do; you get what you pay for. However, that success does not extend to other categories, as the life expectancy figures tell us.
Excelling in one particular area, though admirable does not tell the whole picture, overall picture is still pretty dismal for USA.
Now, I am only guessing here, but my guess would be that more cases are detected at stages 1 and 2 in Europe and Canada, compared to USA, and more cases are detected at Stages 3 and 4 in USA, compared to Europe and Canada. The reason I say this is that preventative medicine is lot less prevalent in USA compared to other counties (in USA there usually would be a co-payment, which is not present in other countries; it probably acts as a disincentive.
If that is the case, the study gives us only incomplete picture. Incidentally, the study also says that survival rates are high in Canada and Australia.
Second point is, cancer survival is only part of the story. This probably shows that USA spends a lot more on cancer than other countries do; you get what you pay for. However, that success does not extend to other categories, as the life expectancy figures tell us.
Excelling in one particular area, though admirable does not tell the whole picture, overall picture is still pretty dismal for USA.
Contrary to what you think, the majority of Americans are quite happy with our healthcare. If Canadian healthcare is so good, why to wealthy Canadians come to the U.S. to be treated. The only weakness in our healthcare seems to be in the infant mortality rate, which is probably due to not getting early checkups for some. Which by the way maybe their fault, all anyone has to do is walk into any public hospital clinic and they will check you out. (insurance not required, preferred but not required) Overall picture is dismal because we can fix the 5% of people much cheaper for whatever reason do not have coverage easier that revamping the total health system. Only roughly 5% of the 45 million quoted really have no health insurance what's so ever. (from CNBC last night)
The problem is that the fundemental sickness in the Us economy hasn't been addressed. In fact, with Fannie Mae handing out those 125% mortgages it would seem that they haven't learned a thing from this crash. The total debt load of the average US household is approaching $700,000 (combined personal and government) and there's no way that can ever be paid. It will have to be accounted for somehow, and that's why the foundations of the US economy are crumbling. Anything they do that doesn't address this problem is only prolonging the inevitable. I fear (and so do some ecnonomists) that the current uptick is merely the stimulus bubble, and it will burst, leading to a crash that makes the last one look like a picnic.
That being said, I fervently hope I'm wrong. I'd much prefer a recovery and I'd happily give full credit to Obama if he can pull it off. But don't hold your breath; if he's dumb enough to implement that cap and trade tax, the result from that alone will be catastrophic.
It sucks being a pessimist.
Not the USA? Really! Yet the US government spends more per capita on health care than the Canadian governments (Federal and provincial combined).
"Dumbya" has an ivy leage university education, and he got better marks than either of his presidential election opponents (Gore and Kerry).
Spending per person (most recent) by country
I wonder how much Joey figures they need to spend before he considers them involved.
I wonder how much Joey figures they need to spend before he considers them involved.