|
USA vs The World. (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| eXstatic |
| quote: | | Originally posted by Reverend_Trance |
You trying to get me banned? If you have something to say, come and say it to me. If you want to ban me, go run like a coward to the admins and ban me then. If you can't handle some explicit vocabulary, than maybe I should tone it down a bit for the little children in here. |
|
|
| eXstatic |
For your reply, privatization means the government nor the people have ANY control of the health sector(s) being privatized. This means that corporations in control can charge whatever they please for health care, and not have anybody tell them otherwise. This also means that only those with money, and lots of it will be able to comfortably afford it. So sorry if I believe HEALTH CARE IS A ING HUMAN RIGHT AND NOT A COMMODITY YOU CAN SELL. NO ONE has the right to control any service that is essential to your well being and existence as a human.
If you believe otherwise, that's great for you. I hope one day you can feel the effects of not having enough money to pay for your families medicine and having the burden of watching them die infront of you because of the very system you praise. |
|
|
| Reverend_Trance |
| quote: | Originally posted by eXstatic
For your reply, privatization means the government nor the people have ANY control of the health sector(s) being privatized. This means that corporations in control can charge whatever they please for health care, and not have anybody tell them otherwise. This also means that only those with money, and lots of it will be able to comfortably afford it. |
The catch is that you have many competing health care groups and drug companies. The drugs they produce are usually better than the previous alternative. By seeking a profit, they want to make better drugs. The complaining about the high cost of drugs is insane. While senior citizens go to Canada to get cheaper drugs under the existing socialist system, it undercuts the drug company. They have less money to work with. It takes years of forulating, testing, re-formulating the drug, independent studies, federal approval, etc. It takes time and millions of dollars. To make this up, the cost of the drug/ medical treatment is high.
| quote: | Originally posted by eXstatic
So sorry if I believe HEALTH CARE IS A ING HUMAN RIGHT AND NOT A COMMODITY YOU CAN SELL. NO ONE has the right to control any service that is essential to your well being and existence as a human.
If you believe otherwise, that's great for you. |
Health care is NOT a basic human right. That in itself does not mean that people who are ill or injured are not treated. Where does it say that health care is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT? People that could be treated for easily curable diseases die every day around the world. Show me in any document that you have the RIGHT of heath care. The closest thing I can find is the Hippocratic Oath. It is the oath all doctors take be fore beginning their practice. The modern version states that these people are not "a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being..." Which I agree with, but they treat the sick, but where does it say you have to treat all equally?
| quote: | Originally posted by eXstatic
I hope one day you can feel the effects of not having enough money to pay for your families medicine and having the burden of watching them die infront of you because of the very system you praise. |
This thing did happen to me, as a matter of fact. My grandfather needed a liver due to a rare disease. He was dying in the hospital until a donor showed up. He was placed on the list like everyone else. He got the liver in the nick of time. He is recovering over the past few months. From what I understand that in socialized medicine, people are placed on the list based on how they comtribute to society. Like a working male whould have priority over a retired person. Here all people are equal. All have an equal chance at life.
Refute me if I am wrong. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
A "basic human right" is something that cannot be taken away. If anything health care would be placed into the "entitlement" category along with social security and welfare. These are not "basic human rights" either. Health care, medicine in general, is a technology. Much the same way I do not the the "right" to a plasma TV or a computer, I do not have the "right" to health care.
What if I live in the country, miles away from civilization and I have no car. If I had a car and became sick, I, or a loved one could drive me to the hospital twice as fast as if the ambulance came and picked me up, increasing my chances of survival. Do I therefore have the "right" to a car because it *may* save my life, much the same way as medical care *may* save my life?
I also consider "basic human rights" to be timeless. Freedom from opression, free speech, etc. have all been desires since the beginning of civilization. But how can medicine fall into this category if it in an invention of modern society? |
|
|
| BadBadNeil |
| If you are truly ill and go to the hospital I believe they will not refuse you as a patient, healthcare or not. They may stick you with a bill afterwards but they will treat you. In many cases those who can't afford healthcare have available various organizations who help them get donated medical attention or have various plans available to help with payments. |
|
|
| Sevas Stra |
| In the U.S. the system is much more complicated than you have just described. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sevas Stra
In the U.S. the system is much more complicated than you have just described. |
How so? If you walk into the ER, they must treat you, regardless of your ability to pay. In fact, it is against the law for the ER to even ask how you plan on paying. I also know for a fact that state run hospitals (like the one I work for) display signs at all entrances saying that based on need, medical care will be given for free or at a reduced price. There are also, as BadBadNeil said, many organizations (American Cancer Society, etc.) that work to help those in need. This being said, health care is not given out for free to those who can afford it, but no one in need is turned away from a hospital, and every year hospitals budget billions in order to pay for those who cannot. |
|
|
| occrider |
Since many would appear to be ignorant of the facts ... from the Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act:
| quote: |
(a) Medical screening requirement
In the case of a hospital that has a hospital emergency
department, if any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits
under this subchapter) comes to the emergency department and a
request is made on the individual's behalf for examination or
treatment for a medical condition, the hospital must provide for an
appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of
the hospital's emergency department, including ancillary services
routinely available to the emergency department, to determine
whether or not an emergency medical condition (within the meaning
of subsection (e)(1) of this section) exists.
(b) Necessary stabilizing treatment for emergency medical
conditions and labor
(1) In general
If any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under
this subchapter) comes to a hospital and the hospital determines
that the individual has an emergency medical condition, the
hospital must provide either -
(A) within the staff and facilities available at the
hospital, for such further medical examination and such
treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical
condition, or
(B) for transfer of the individual to another medical
facility in accordance with subsection (c) of this section.
(2) Refusal to consent to treatment
A hospital is deemed to meet the requirement of paragraph
(1)(A) with respect to an individual if the hospital offers the
individual the further medical examination and treatment
described in that paragraph and informs the individual (or a
person acting on the individual's behalf) of the risks and
benefits to the individual of such examination and treatment, but
the individual (or a person acting on the individual's behalf)
refuses to consent to the examination and treatment. The
hospital shall take all reasonable steps to secure the
individual's (or person's) written informed consent to refuse
such examination and treatment.
(3) Refusal to consent to transfer
A hospital is deemed to meet the requirement of paragraph (1)
with respect to an individual if the hospital offers to transfer
the individual to another medical facility in accordance with
subsection (c) of this section and informs the individual (or a
person acting on the individual's behalf) of the risks and
benefits to the individual of such transfer, but the individual
(or a person acting on the individual's behalf) refuses to
consent to the transfer. The hospital shall take all reasonable
steps to secure the individual's (or person's) written informed
consent to refuse such transfer.
(c) Restricting transfers until individual stabilized
(1) Rule
If an individual at a hospital has an emergency medical
condition which has not been stabilized (within the meaning of
subsection (e)(3)(B) of this section), the hospital may not
transfer the individual unless -
(A)(i) the individual (or a legally responsible person acting
on the individual's behalf) after being informed of the
hospital's obligations under this section and of the risk of
transfer, in writing requests transfer to another medical
facility,
(ii) a physician (within the meaning of section 1395x(r)(1)
of this title) has signed a certification that (FOOTNOTE 1)
based upon the information available at the time of transfer,
the medical benefits reasonably expected from the provision of
appropriate medical treatment at another medical facility
outweigh the increased risks to the individual and, in the case
of labor, to the unborn child from effecting the transfer, or
(FOOTNOTE 1) So in original. Probably should be followed by a
comma.
(iii) if a physician is not physically present in the
emergency department at the time an individual is transferred,
a qualified medical person (as defined by the Secretary in
regulations) has signed a certification described in clause
(ii) after a physician (as defined in section 1395x(r)(1) of
this title), in consultation with the person, has made the
determination described in such clause, and subsequently
countersigns the certification; and
(B) the transfer is an appropriate transfer (within the
meaning of paragraph (2)) to that facility.
A certification described in clause (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph
(A) shall include a summary of the risks and benefits upon which
the certification is based.
(2) Appropriate transfer
An appropriate transfer to a medical facility is a transfer -
(A) in which the transferring hospital provides the medical
treatment within its capacity which minimizes the risks to the
individual's health and, in the case of a woman in labor, the
health of the unborn child;
(B) in which the receiving facility -
(i) has available space and qualified personnel for the
treatment of the individual, and
(ii) has agreed to accept transfer of the individual and to
provide appropriate medical treatment;
(C) in which the transferring hospital sends to the receiving
facility all medical records (or copies thereof), related to
the emergency condition for which the individual has presented,
available at the time of the transfer, including records
related to the individual's emergency medical condition,
observations of signs or symptoms, preliminary diagnosis,
treatment provided, results of any tests and the informed
written consent or certification (or copy thereof) provided
under paragraph (1)(A), and the name and address of any on-call
physician (described in subsection (d)(1)(C) of this section)
who has refused or failed to appear within a reasonable time to
provide necessary stabilizing treatment;
(D) in which the transfer is effected through qualified
personnel and transportation equipment, as required including
the use of necessary and medically appropriate life support
measures during the transfer; and
(E) which meets such other requirements as the Secretary may
find necessary in the interest of the health and safety of
individuals transferred.
http://www.emtala.com/statute.txt
|
|
|
|
| Sevas Stra |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
How so? If you walk into the ER, they must treat you, regardless of your ability to pay. In fact, it is against the law for the ER to even ask how you plan on paying. I also know for a fact that state run hospitals (like the one I work for) display signs at all entrances saying that based on need, medical care will be given for free or at a reduced price. There are also, as BadBadNeil said, many organizations (American Cancer Society, etc.) that work to help those in need. This being said, health care is not given out for free to those who can afford it, but no one in need is turned away from a hospital, and every year hospitals budget billions in order to pay for those who cannot. |
wrong, the ER has to do jack but to stabilize you because after that the cost is too high and the patient will be asked for insurance information and/or ID for the bill. Paramedics will pick up a bum, that is true but they will not take him to a good hospital. In other cities they will take him to some local county hospital, in new york they'll take him to a rundown clinic mostly likely the CH's in Harlem or the Bronx. If you walk in with no insurance but in need for a heart transplant you are severly screwed. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sevas Stra
wrong, the ER has to do jack but to stabilize you because after that the cost is too high and the patient will be asked for insurance information and/or ID for the bill. Paramedics will pick up a bum, that is true but they will not take him to a good hospital. In other cities they will take him to some local county hospital, in new york they'll take him to a rundown clinic mostly likely the CH's in Harlem or the Bronx. If you walk in with no insurance but in need for a heart transplant you are severly screwed. |
Talking to you about this is obviously pointless. I've worked in a hospital for the last two years, my dad is an ER doctor, and I'm currently in medical school to become an ER doctor. However, your own misguided opinions are seemingly inseperable from your percieved facts. You believe yourself to have some greater insight than I into medicine, so I'll let you continue with your own depressing views of "real world" healthcare. I urge you however to volunteer your time in a cardiac or oncology unit and see how many people without insurance are being treated for their illness. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sevas Stra
wrong, the ER has to do jack but to stabilize you because after that the cost is too high and the patient will be asked for insurance information and/or ID for the bill. Paramedics will pick up a bum, that is true but they will not take him to a good hospital. In other cities they will take him to some local county hospital, in new york they'll take him to a rundown clinic mostly likely the CH's in Harlem or the Bronx. If you walk in with no insurance but in need for a heart transplant you are severly screwed. |
I believe EMTALA addresses this as well:
| quote: |
(3)(A) The term ''to stabilize'' means, with respect to an
emergency medical condition described in paragraph (1)(A), to
provide such medical treatment of the condition as may be
necessary to assure, within reasonable medical probability, that
no material deterioration of the condition is likely to result
from or occur during the transfer of the individual from a
facility, or, with respect to an emergency medical condition
described in paragraph (1)(B), to deliver (including the
placenta).
|
If you are in need of a transplant, you get added to the transplant organ list just like any other individual:
http://www.optn.org/about/transplan...hingprocess.asp
The ability to pay for a transplant is not one of the criteria for selection. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| What does that have to do with USA vs The World. :conf: I guess it side tracked somewhere |
|
|
|
|
