OT: Health Care Bill - long reply

[Guest guest]

Correction on one point. A hospital that gets federal funds, cannot turn

you away for emergency care. The catch here is " federal funds " . If this

is a private hospital or maybe city, state or religious affiliated

hospital, that gets no federal funds. They can and have, turned away

emergency patients. This is legal to do.

 

Now, a hospital that receives state and/or city funds, may have the same

thing told to them as above. Just that I do not know about that. I also

know that a lot of the religious oriented hospitals or maybe all, do not

turn down any emergency care to a patient.

 

As to the health care bill. Most of the AARP members were against it. I

know that AARP officials never consulted us if we wanted it. They paid

our money for it. Why we now have a different group out there working

for us and asking us what to do. AARP is on the downswing. Obviously, I

am against the health care bill. No socialized health care has ever been

good for everyone. Look at Canada, the UK and Russia. I suspect that

Chinas is worse.

 

BTW, if you didn't know. AARP stands for Americans Against Retired

People. Oh wait, that's my own name for them. It is American Association

of Retired Persons.

 

Bill

 

essentialherbal wrote:

>

>

> " Hospitals can't turn you away in case of an emergency. They can't

> do a credit check before treating you for a heart attack to see if

> you can pay the bills. If you can't pay the bills, the hospital is

> forced to pass along your costs to everyone else (same as with the

> house). "

>

> That may be the expected standard of care, but at one time my brother

> went into the hospital in very serious condition. We couldn't

> understand why his care was so bad (no tests, no pro-active care...

> just maintenance), and finally called in a patient advocate. At that

> point, it was discovered that his insurance was incorrectly listed,

> and it appeared that he had none. Once we fixed that, it was amazing

> how quickly his care improved. They told us later that the insurance

> made no difference, but there was no other explanation.

>

> I'm also glad to see this bill passed because I know too many people

> who are stuck in crappy jobs because they need the employer's

> coverage due to pre-existing conditions. How many people do YOU know

> who would have started a business, taken a risk, or done something

> with their life that they really wanted to do if it weren't for the

> stronghold insurance has had over us?

>

> Tina

[Guest guest]

I gotta chime in on this one too...I know the health care institutions and

health care professionals aren't " supposed " to base their care of you based on

whether or not you can pay or whether or not you have insurance, but they

certainly do. I've lived without medical insurance for a long time because I

simply can't afford it. I have had doctors tell me several times that " if you

had insurance, we'd probably do such and such, but since you're self pay we'll

spare that expense " . Does that mean they are performing unnecessary procedures

on the insured, or does it mean they are not giving me the care I should have

because they think I won't or can't pay for it? I mean, these tests and

procedures are either necessary or they're not, right? So which is it? Also,

during my uninsured years I have had 2 major surgeries (hysterectomy and gall

bladder) which I paid for out of my own pocket completely. It was still cheaper

than insurance. So, while the government may be able to force me to get health

insurance, I resent the implication that the reason for it is to prevent others

from having to pay for my healthcare, because that is not the case. I pay for

it, I just chose not to overpay for insurance.

my 2 cents worth.

Cindy Atkins

 

-

Selkie

Thursday, March 25, 2010 2:01 PM

Re: Re: OT: Health Care Bill - long reply

 

 

 

I have working experience in both hospital on the floor, pharmacy and

currently my spouse works ER and you are accurate about the care and the class

distinction. It does not matter if you are self pay, insured etc.....it does NOT

affect the nurse's or doctor's pay checks and it is NOT for them to judge. You

take an oath to do what you do in any medical field and that is to 'harm none'

and to 'heal' not cherry pick for monetary gain only......I know........I lost a

24 year old daughter and my first born Grandaughter in 2007 because she was not

able to get insurance thru her employer and was on medicaide. My child also

worked FULL TIME.

 

At the insistance of her friend......they FINALLY saw her in ER and at that

point she 'crashed' and by the time we got there, 45 min

later she had been admitted to ICU , fully intubated and when we left to get a

motel room they induced a medical coma and when we came back we never saw her

awake again and she was completely and totally as helpless as a newborn and at

the mercy of the staff. Gross negligence WAS proven and it turns out , Norman

Regional Hospital which employs a total of 3000 staff does NOT have to carry

malpractice insurance so you can't sue them.....you have to sue individual

people like the nurses, doctors, radiologists etc independently and what is

charted is 'set in stone' vs what really happened . Sen. Tom Coburn, who is anti

healthcare reform is also an OB/GYN and when I contacted his office he said

'thats not my jurisdiction' and he referred me to one of my daughter's former

teachers who is a local senator now and has no jurisdiction whatsoever but Sen.

Coburn DOES. My atty's advice was to inquire as to how this hospital was the

ONLY one in the state that

doesn't have to have all of their papers and coverages other hospitals do and

who is looking the other way? One man died in the chair in the lobby because

they failed to triage him for what was clearly typical symptoms of an impending

heart attack. He was sent to his chair and 9 hours later found DEAD when they

got to him.

 

Oh, he didnt have insurance.

 

I've heard it in report at shift change ......mrs. so and so in room 309,

private insurance , admitted with such and such complaint......note the order of

info on the patient......first the name and room and then the insurance.

 

I'm guessing this will be asked to stop on this thread and I understand why.

its explosive and not relative to oils and herbs tho you might like to know that

as I do my continuing education in pharmacy they are now including herbal

information and thats a step forward in western medicine.

 

selkiepeople

 

" Hospitals can't turn you away in case of an emergency. They can't do a credit

check before treating you for a heart attack to see if you can pay the bills. If

you can't pay the bills, the hospital is forced to pass along your costs to

everyone else (same as with the house). "

 

That may be the expected standard of care, but at one time my brother went

into the hospital in very serious condition. We couldn't understand why his care

was so bad (no tests, no pro-active care... just maintenance), and finally

called in a patient advocate. At that point, it was discovered that his

insurance was incorrectly listed, and it appeared that he had none. Once we

fixed that, it was amazing how quickly his care improved. They told us later

that the insurance made no difference, but there was no other explanation.

 

I'm also glad to see this bill passed because I know too many people who are

stuck in crappy jobs because they need the employer's coverage due to

pre-existing conditions. How many people do YOU know who would have started a

business, taken a risk, or done something with their life that they really

wanted to do if it weren't for the stronghold insurance has had over us?

 

Tina

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I am wondering what you are seeing that I am not that it is going to be

government run? They took The Public Option off the table.... and that

still wasn't government run, just competition to the fat cats.

 

 

>

> Remember this in a few short years cause this is the type of health care

> most of Europe has and now so will we.

> I think we needed to fix some things about our health care & insurance

> situation just not like this. One of the best ways would have been to

> allow us to buy insurance across state lines just like other types of

> insurance.

> Regards

> Carol

>

[Guest guest]

Although I agree that the health care system needs to be reformed, I don't agree

with the government forcing anyone to buy anything. In the case of owning a

home-you don't have to own a home. If you CHOOSE to live in a home then you

know that homeowner's insurance is part of the deal. You surely don't have to

own a car-if you CHOOSE to own a car you know that car insurance is part of the

responsibility of owning a car. You don't have to have children-but you know

that if you CHOOSE to have children, there are certain responsibilities that

come with raising them. Unfortunately for hospitals, for which I used to work,

insurance companies often underpay for services they provide, no different than

doctors who charge $150 for a particular procedure and end up getting $35 from

an insurance company. And malpractice-that is one giant area that needs

reform-doctors must test for everything under the sun in order to keep from

getting sued by everyone and their mothers. Healthcare reform could have been

handled in very different ways. And if you would like to compare this to

neighbors having to pay for someone's burned down house who had no homeowner's

insurance than you might as well say that the government can FORCE everyone to

get a job because why should the rest of us pay for those on welfare. Susan

 

 

 

, " cynconn " <cynconn wrote:

>

> I have been thinking about this a lot with all the recent news. I think it is

a good thing and here is why: Say you decided to not spend any money on home

insurance because you wanted to spend the money on something else or you just

didn't have it. One day your house burns down. Now you either have to come up

with the money to build a new house, pitch a tent on the burned ground and live

there or you are just out of luck. However, the government steps in and says

that you have to have a place to live. So your neighbors are forced to all

pitch in $10,000 each to build you a new home even though THEY have all been

paying for their own home insurance. That sure isn't fair to the neighbors.

>

> People forget that it is called health *insurance*. Your mortgage lender

requires you to have homeowner's insurance to protect their investment in your

home. My state requires me to have auto insurance to protect other people in

case I cause an accident and don't have the money to pay for the damage I cause.

My state ALSO requires me to pay for uninsured motorist insurance in case some

uninsured causes an accident and can't pay. And I pay for UNDERinsured

insurance in case some causes an accident that cost $10,000 and their

insurance is only for $100. That really ticks me off. If I have to have auto

insurance to drive, so should everyone else but we don't check for auto

insurance at the state borders.

>

> To me, health insurance is exactly the same thing. None of us can predict

getting hit by a car or some major illness suddenly appearing. I don't want to

live in a country where you have to pay up front before being treated and if you

can't pay, you die. And I also do NOT want to have to pay someone else's bills

on top of my own insurance payments. Hospitals can't turn you away in case of

an emergency. They can't do a credit check before treating you for a heart

attack to see if you can pay the bills. If you can't pay the bills, the

hospital is forced to pass along your costs to everyone else (same as with the

house).

>

> So I think that everyone should be required/forced/whatever word you like, to

have insurance that protects both themselves and others from having to pay huge

bills for unforeseen illnesses / accidents. There should be a realistic basic

minimum just as there is with my homeowner's and auto insurance.

>

> Now as a country, we can do more to make ourselves healthy so that we don't

require as many doctor/emergency room visits which is exactly what you are

doing. Then the costs of insurance should go down (which we all know probably

won't happen but I can dream).

>

> I am purposefully ignoring the fact that the government is in charge of this

" overhaul " . I have enough trouble coping as it is.

>

> Cynthia

>

> , " Lisa " <lisamerrill2007@> wrote:

> >

> > I'm kinda bummed...after working so hard to put my family's health on my own

hands and save a TON of money in the process, I might end up forced to pay for

insurance I will never use. That's why I started using essential oils in

the first place!

> >

> > Lisa

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Susan:

 

I agree with a lot of what you wrote.

 

I believe that it is the job of the United States government to provide for the

general welfare of the American people as it states in the preamble to the

constitution.

 

However, the major corporations are generally not committed to the welfare of

the American people but to produce profits for the shareholders. This is why

the health insurance corporations are unable to provide the American people with

a decent and humane health care system. In my opinion, health insurance

corporations are dinosaurs soon to draw their last breath. They just don't know

it yet. In the meantime, they are so enormous and have so much money and power

that reform could not pass without a mandate. However I think the American

people are growing weary of pouring so many billions of dollars into the health

insurance industry with such dismal results. It's ironic because the health

insurance industry is partially responsible for the need for reform. I think a

public option will become increasingly attractive to the American people as the

private health insurance companies continue to fail to serve us.

 

I think the mandate is unfortunate and I don't like it either, but until we have

a single payer system or a public option, without a mandate we will continue to

have people showing up in emergency rooms with heart attacks, septic wounds

etc., with no health insurance and no means to pay. We already do pay for that

one way or another.

 

I don't like this idea, but the only alternative I can think to our current

broken system besides mandates or a public option is to reverse the Hippocratic

oath and put a stop the requirements for hospitals to save lives irregardless of

insurance or ability to pay. No insurance, no admission to the emergency room.

Of course that would be a travesty.

 

blessings,

 

Susan

 

, " SusanP " <ripple95 wrote:

>

> Although I agree that the health care system needs to be reformed, I don't

agree with the government forcing anyone to buy anything.