Yep. They have to pay for the indigent and uninsured somehow.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
So much for Cuban healthcare
- Thread starter dogtowner
- Start date
Werbung:
They have to pay for the full staff of do d's surgeons tech's equipment nurses and diagnostics. Its an er.
Of course.
And make up for the indigent uninsured.
Drop in the bucket
Seriously? When anyone can go to the ER, able to pay or not, and get treated, but can't otherwise see a doctor, the indigent uninsured is a "drop in the bucket?"
Must be a kind of a big bucket.
Lot smaller than the Medicaid bucket. But they're not considered indigent .
Sure, the Medicaid recipients are indigent, but they get to go to doctors, where the cost of treating them is a lot less than for those who have no insurance.
No fraud when there is no taxpayer to loot.
citizen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2016
- Messages
- 180
The National Health Service NHS ,in the UK has been a success,since it began in the nineteen forties.It is an example of socialism working.This has bothered the capitalist Conservative party of the UK for many years,they are trying to privatise it,basically trying to sabotage it.It really sticks in the throat of greedy capitalists when a decent humane socialist concept works.The financial system always ruins everything.Hopefully one day we'll evolve into a world that is unified,democratic and free of money.
Openmind
Well-Known Member
Yes! ER's exist in every countries. . . even those in "universal healthcare" countries, and they ALL have to pay for the staff, the technology, diagnosis, etc. . .
An ER is an ER. . .but ONLY in the US do you have to mortgage your home for a visit there!
Amazing how stupid and blind some people can be. . .not WANTING to see that our system of "healthcare" is ruining us in order, once again, to make a few people (healthcare industry) wealthier!
Openmind
Well-Known Member
You are correct, of course. And one also has to consider that, because they are being treated, their ailment does not multiply and become catastrophic because of lack of care.
Face it. . .if a chest cold gets taken care of at an early stage, it doesn't usually develop into a bronchitis or chronic pneumonia. . . which would be more costly, more painful, and may even lead to total disability and the need to be admitted in intensive care!
You are wrong to assume that just because they have access that their diseases are managed. It us a battle getting members to take any responsibility. Virginia is now trying a different scheme using provider payment to force member involvement as costs have spiraled due to needless ER and surgery.
The biggest problem in America is Americans. They want what they want and damn the consequences.
But Europe is rapidly catching up
The Scotsman
Well-Known Member
Whats' the first point of contact with the medical system (not emergency) is it a referal from a GP or do you go straight to the Hospital?
I have private medical insurance so I have the choice of both worlds NHS or if the wait is long I go private, however, I have to start with the GP and their referral. From there I can chose which route I want to take. In the case of the private route the insurer will still monitor the treatment and approve the procedures etc. as it goes along. I can chose to have something done that the Insurer does not approve of in which case I have to pay for that particular treatment.
It depends on your plan. You may need to see your GP or for something serious call the plan to authorize urgent care or ER. For me I just go. Need preauth for procedures. As my GP is an urgent care facility I get a wider range of services and hours are 8am to 10pm seven days a week.
Werbung:
The Scotsman
Well-Known Member
I was wondering then, if one requires an authorisation from the Insurer then how can you go through needless surgery - do the insurers actually authorise i.e check the efficacy of the proceedure which you or the hospital require/desire or just simply rubber stamp a proceedure and pay?
I can understasnd that if one has the cash to pay for elective/cosmetic surgery but surely if you have to pre-authorise a proceedure with a provider then the Insurer is the arbiter who decides whether to pay for it or not?
