The best health care in the world

[Dr.Who]

Did you look at post #102, including the addition I made to it?

Can you say that those "occurences" from 2011 and 2010 are not true?

I did look at that post. I cannot know which parts are additions unless I go to some unusual lengths.

I have no doubt that they are true. But in NONE of them were any patients dumped on the streets.

 

[Openmind]

I did look at that post. I cannot know which parts are additions unless I go to some unusual lengths.

I have no doubt that they are true. But in NONE of them were any patients dumped on the streets.

Oh. . .you want the REAL DUMPING on the street drama?

Dying because of being dumped from one bad hospital to another bad hospital, or dying because you're sent back into your ghetto without receiving help, or dying because you wait for 7 hours INSIDE an emergency waiting room . . . doesn't qualify as "dumping" in your book?

Well. . .it does qualify as dumping under the law!

Now, if you want a "dumping on the street" horror story, I haven't been looking exactly for that one, although that, I would assume that, since the 60 minutes program that SHOWED elderly people put in a taxi, and then dumped on the street IN THEIR HOSPITAL GOWN, said hospital (especially when they are "charitable, Christian" hospitals are a little more careful!

You can't possibly be that heartless.

And the "edit" begins with the "Wikepedia" quote.

 

[Dr.Who]

Oh. . .you want the REAL DUMPING on the street drama?

Dying because of being dumped from one bad hospital to another bad hospital, or dying because you're sent back into your ghetto without receiving help, or dying because you wait for 7 hours INSIDE an emergency waiting room . . . doesn't qualify as "dumping" in your book?

Well. . .it does qualify as dumping under the law!

Now, if you want a "dumping on the street" horror story, I haven't been looking exactly for that one, although that, I would assume that, since the 60 minutes program that SHOWED elderly people put in a taxi, and then dumped on the street IN THEIR HOSPITAL GOWN, said hospital (especially when they are "charitable, Christian" hospitals are a little more careful!

You can't possibly be that heartless.

And the "edit" begins with the "Wikepedia" quote.

I want you to support the statements that YOU MAKE. You were the one that started this by saying people were commonly being dumped in the street and you have failed to support the statement.

If you want to make a new statement about other kinds of dumping that is fine with me. But lets not forget that your first statement still goes without you supporting it. How can any of your conclusions be considered valid if your statements are first unsupported and then just changed to something else when you fail.

And just why were you not looking for the kind of dumping that involved dumping in the street? You set the criteria yourself and in every single post that followed this chain of thought I mentioned the words "in the street"

How heartless is that? Did I at any point say that any kind of dumping is good? No.

Heartless because I want you to support the actual statements that you make? Or heartless because you are failing to support your statements and it is frustrating and you want to attack me?

When you support the actual statements you make then we can both arrive at something like truth and can both learn. But when you make statements and then support something else we will never arrive at truth. Not arriving at truth when it involves policy that effects life and death is heartless.

 

[PLC1]

and if they don't "dump" the patient, who pays the tab?

 

[dogtowner]

I did look at that post. I cannot know which parts are additions unless I go to some unusual lengths.

I have no doubt that they are true. But in NONE of them were any patients dumped on the streets.

from the information provided it appeared that the fault receiving penalty had to do with failing to provide a medical screening. it does not define what that entails.

 

[dogtowner]

and if they don't "dump" the patient, who pays the tab?

everyone only without the overhead costs on top of the actual care.

 

[PLC1]

everyone only without the overhead costs on top of the actual care.

Without the overhead cost? The emergency room is the most expensive sort of care there is.

 

[Openmind]

I want you to support the statements that YOU MAKE. You were the one that started this by saying people were commonly being dumped in the street and you have failed to support the statement.

If you want to make a new statement about other kinds of dumping that is fine with me. But lets not forget that your first statement still goes without you supporting it. How can any of your conclusions be considered valid if your statements are first unsupported and then just changed to something else when you fail.

And just why were you not looking for the kind of dumping that involved dumping in the street? You set the criteria yourself and in every single post that followed this chain of thought I mentioned the words "in the street"

How heartless is that? Did I at any point say that any kind of dumping is good? No.

Heartless because I want you to support the actual statements that you make? Or heartless because you are failing to support your statements and it is frustrating and you want to attack me?

When you support the actual statements you make then we can both arrive at something like truth and can both learn. But when you make statements and then support something else we will never arrive at truth. Not arriving at truth when it involves policy that effects life and death is heartless.

Your bad faith is blinding you!

Here is ONE exemple from 2007:

Your bad faith is blinding you!

But here goes:

LOS ANGELES - A hospital van dropped off a paraplegic man on Skid Row, allegedly leaving him crawling in the street with nothing more than a soiled gown and a broken colostomy bag, police said.

Witnesses who said they saw the incident Thursday wrote down a phone number on the van and took down its license-plate number, which helped detectives connect the vehicle to Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center, the Los Angeles Times reported on its Web site.

Police said the incident was a case of “homeless dumping” and were questioning officials from the hospital.

<snip>

The case comes three months after the L.A. city attorney’s office filed its first indictment for homeless dumping against Kaiser Permanente for an incident earlier last year. In the earlier case, a 63-year-old patient from the hospital’s Bellflower medical center was videotaped wandering the streets of Skid Row in a hospital gown and socks.

Dan Springer, a spokesman for Hollywood Presbyterian, did not confirm or deny that the van carrying the homeless man came from his medical center but said an internal investigation was under way.

“We have, as do all hospitals, vans that transport patients. It’s a contracted service. We are ... looking into all the facts,” he said Friday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com

And the one documented by 60 minutes:

February 11, 2009 4:51 PM PrintText
Dumped On Skid Row
ByJames M Klatell .

 

[dogtowner]

Without the overhead cost? The emergency room is the most expensive sort of care there is.

if the patient requires that degree of care you would prefer he be shown the door ? of course not.

my point is that if you have to provide adequate care OR provide proscribed care + the overhead of a government bureaucracy then its going to cost you a lot more. (Please note that in the terrible old days the staff worked pro bono. No ****.)

 

[Openmind]

if the patient requires that degree of care you would prefer he be shown the door ? of course not.

my point is that if you have to provide adequate care OR provide proscribed care + the overhead of a government bureaucracy then its going to cost you a lot more. (Please note that in the terrible old days the staff worked pro bono. No ****.)

Your ignorance or blindness is amazing!

Why do you think private insurances are not interested in covering people over 65? Or the disable? Or people with mental illness?

Because it cost too much per capita!

So, we either have the government cover them, or we let them die.

Now, if the government can cover the population that is the MOST COSTLY because of MUCH greater needs, and does it for a minimum participation by the medicare insured, while for profit insurance cover the population that has very basic, or occasional needs. A population which, per capita, costs MUCH less than the elderly and the disable. . . yet, charges 10 or 20 times MORE than the government charges the people they cover. . .do you think that MIGHT explain why medicare "doesn't make a profit, and is in trouble?"

Now, imagine that, medicare was ALSO available to anyone (of any age) that would prefer to suscribe to it, at a cost that would be, not 10 or 20 x more than the current medicare, but maybe 3 x more than the current medicare.

This would provide a HUGE decrease in cost per capita for medicare, and a HUGE decrease in health care premium for people who would CHOOSE to sign up with "early medicare" (you could also call it a public option) instead of signing up with private for profit insurance.

Why, because the average "risk factor" of a population extended to ALL age groups would be SO MUCH lower than the risk factor of elderly or disable group only AND since the public option would charge more for "early medicare" or "public option" than the current medicare premium for elderly and disabled, they would have more money coming in, with less cost per capita going out.

And. . .if you don't like the "public options" why don't we make it a condition of being a provider of health care insurance that they would have to cover EVERYONE, including the elderly and disable, but at no more cost to those population than what they are currently paying for medicare or medicaid?

Why have we allowed for so many decade the insurance companies to "pick and choose" who they would agree to cover, and reject the rest. . .even throw some out of their policies? Why have we allowed them to put a "life cap" on the coverage they provide? And all that without putting ANY restriction on how much premium increase they could impose?

This situation is what made it ABSOLUTELY necessary to have medicare and medicaid. . .

In fact, I am beginning to think that, repealing Obamacare may be the BEST thing that could happen to finally get this country to move toward a public option. . .because what we have now is UNSUSTAINABLE!

When the greed of the health care insurance industry gets big enough that it hurts an even GREATER number of people AND their employers. . .everyone will be begging for a government option!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Your ignorance or blindness is amazing!

Why do you think private insurances are not interested in covering people over 65? Or the disable? Or people with mental illness?

Because it cost too much per capita!

So, we either have the government cover them, or we let them die.

Now, if the government can cover the population that is the MOST COSTLY because of MUCH greater needs, and does it for a minimum participation by the medicare insured, while for profit insurance cover the population that has very basic, or occasional needs. A population which, per capita, costs MUCH less than the elderly and the disable. . . yet, charges 10 or 20 times MORE than the government charges the people they cover. . .do you think that MIGHT explain why medicare "doesn't make a profit, and is in trouble?"

Now, imagine that, medicare was ALSO available to anyone (of any age) that would prefer to suscribe to it, at a cost that would be, not 10 or 20 x more than the current medicare, but maybe 3 x more than the current medicare.

This would provide a HUGE decrease in cost per capita for medicare, and a HUGE decrease in health care premium for people who would CHOOSE to sign up with "early medicare" (you could also call it a public option) instead of signing up with private for profit insurance.

Why, because the average "risk factor" of a population extended to ALL age groups would be SO MUCH lower than the risk factor of elderly or disable group only AND since the public option would charge more for "early medicare" or "public option" than the current medicare premium for elderly and disabled, they would have more money coming in, with less cost per capita going out.

And. . .if you don't like the "public options" why don't we make it a condition of being a provider of health care insurance that they would have to cover EVERYONE, including the elderly and disable, but at no more cost to those population than what they are currently paying for medicare or medicaid?

Why have we allowed for so many decade the insurance companies to "pick and choose" who they would agree to cover, and reject the rest. . .even throw some out of their policies? Why have we allowed them to put a "life cap" on the coverage they provide? And all that without putting ANY restriction on how much premium increase they could impose?

This situation is what made it ABSOLUTELY necessary to have medicare and medicaid. . .

In fact, I am beginning to think that, repealing Obamacare may be the BEST thing that could happen to finally get this country to move toward a public option. . .because what we have now is UNSUSTAINABLE!

When the greed of the health care insurance industry gets big enough that it hurts an even GREATER number of people AND their employers. . .everyone will be begging for a government option!

Its a wounder Republicans pay for Insurance at all, since they seem to think if you don't have it, you are fine...Yet they will pay thousands a year for it!

 

[BigRob]

Your bad faith is blinding you!

Here is ONE exemple from 2007:

Your bad faith is blinding you!

But here goes:



And the one documented by 60 minutes:

Sounds to me like indictments are being filed and these actions are illegal already. What it really sounds like is the case of some bad apples, so to speak.

But demanding reform of an entire system based on a few bad apples seems short sighted to me.

 

[Openmind]

Sounds to me like indictments are being filed and these actions are illegal already. What it really sounds like is the case of some bad apples, so to speak.

But demanding reform of an entire system based on a few bad apples seems short sighted to me.

Did you read e part about how the law is not really working because there is no enough money for real follow through, and the penalties for dumping are so weak that, the combination of the very low risk of "getting caught" and, even if your caught, the ridiculously low penalties make it more "cost effective" to keep on dumping rather than comply with the law.

Did you read about the COST of serving non insured people by those hospitals, cost that is then translated in higher cost for the insured, and thus, higher cost of insurance premiums. . . .and that doesn't even take into account the cost oF HUMAN suffering, human life's, and quality of life!

So., we pay 30 to 50% more in health care cost than the rest of developed countries, for MUCH less access and quality for.everyone!

 

[BigRob]

Did you read e part about how the law is not really working because there is no enough money for real follow through, and the penalties for dumping are so weak that, the combination of the very low risk of "getting caught" and, even if your caught, the ridiculously low penalties make it more "cost effective" to keep on dumping rather than comply with the law.

Did you read about the COST of serving non insured people by those hospitals, cost that is then translated in higher cost for the insured, and thus, higher cost of insurance premiums. . . .and that doesn't even take into account the cost oF HUMAN suffering, human life's, and quality of life!

So., we pay 30 to 50% more in health care cost than the rest of developed countries, for MUCH less access and quality for.everyone!

So are these costs cheaper or not than they otherwise would be under the current system?

 

[dogtowner]

Your ignorance or blindness is amazing!

Why do you think private insurances are not interested in covering people over 65? Or the disable? Or people with mental illness?

because medicare/medicaid already do. with taxpayer money taken at the point of a gun.

Because it cost too much per capita!

So, we either have the government cover them, or we let them die.

Now, if the government can cover the population that is the MOST COSTLY because of MUCH greater needs, and does it for a minimum participation by the medicare insured, while for profit insurance cover the population that has very basic, or occasional needs. A population which, per capita, costs MUCH less than the elderly and the disable. . . yet, charges 10 or 20 times MORE than the government charges the people they cover. . .do you think that MIGHT explain why medicare "doesn't make a profit, and is in trouble?"

they are not permitted to make a profit and they are in trouble due to vot4 buying and fraud.

Now, imagine that, medicare was ALSO available to anyone (of any age) that would prefer to suscribe to it, at a cost that would be, not 10 or 20 x more than the current medicare, but maybe 3 x more than the current medicare.

This would provide a HUGE decrease in cost per capita for medicare, and a HUGE decrease in health care premium for people who would CHOOSE to sign up with "early medicare" (you could also call it a public option) instead of signing up with private for profit insurance.

Why, because the average "risk factor" of a population extended to ALL age groups would be SO MUCH lower than the risk factor of elderly or disable group only AND since the public option would charge more for "early medicare" or "public option" than the current medicare premium for elderly and disabled, they would have more money coming in, with less cost per capita going out.

And. . .if you don't like the "public options" why don't we make it a condition of being a provider of health care insurance that they would have to cover EVERYONE, including the elderly and disable, but at no more cost to those population than what they are currently paying for medicare or medicaid?

Why have we allowed for so many decade the insurance companies to "pick and choose" who they would agree to cover, and reject the rest. . .even throw some out of their policies? Why have we allowed them to put a "life cap" on the coverage they provide? And all that without putting ANY restriction on how much premium increase they could impose?

This situation is what made it ABSOLUTELY necessary to have medicare and medicaid. . .

In fact, I am beginning to think that, repealing Obamacare may be the BEST thing that could happen to finally get this country to move toward a public option. . .because what we have now is UNSUSTAINABLE!

When the greed of the health care insurance industry gets big enough that it hurts an even GREATER number of people AND their employers. . .everyone will be begging for a government option!

well yoju are right that obamacare must go and that a paradigm change is required.