individual mandate and EMTALA

[palliddreamer]

I have a simple question for anyone who believes that it's 'wrong' or 'unconstitutional' to be forced to have insurance. What should happen to someone who opts out of insurance (voluntarily) and then has a catestrophic event such as a car accident? This question simply MUST be answered, yet I never seem to be able to get a straight answer or even

Comments

[drspooky]

I was watching C-SPAN when the vote passed (SHUT UP). A nurse called in talking about how she was against the bill. She said that it was obviously a scam, because everyone already had health coverage. She said that people come in and they have to treat them, and they never ask about insurance.

My jaw hit the floor. It didn't occur to her at all that the treatment still costs money, even if they're not considering someone's ability to pay for it.

[palliddreamer]

I think Mitt Romney made a similar comment. "Just go to the ER. It's free." So not true and that perception is one of the primary things that's still wrong with health care.

On the whole I just don't get the idea of expecting to be treated, but never expecting to pay for it. Someone has to. We can argue about whether the government should through taxes, or whether people should through savings, but on some level, someone has to pay. And Europe knows this and accepts it through taxation. We don't, because as you know, paying taxes is communist.

[drspooky]

It doesn't help that the only credence that gets paid to the idea is when someone opposed to reform says "I shouldn't pay for someone else's medical care!" without realizing that they do already. And that actually planning for it and providing a system where the risk and cost of that is spread more evenly makes much more financial sense for the individual without even touching the needs of the system or the society.

But, you know, we seem to live in a country where the guy who takes away your right to a fair trial, your right to free speech, spies on his own citizens, holds people without criminal charges, starts multiple wars, and is so incompetent as to allow the worst attack on American soil in history: he's a hero and a patriot. The guy who suggests that maybe people should be able to be healthy without going bankrupt: he's a tyrant.

[palliddreamer]

But, you know, we seem to live in a country where the guy who takes away your right to a fair trial, your right to free speech, spies on his own citizens, holds people without criminal charges, starts multiple wars, and is so incompetent as to allow the worst attack on American soil in history: he's a hero and a patriot. The guy who suggests that maybe people should be able to be healthy without going bankrupt: he's a tyrant.

This hits it right on the head. I don't understand the dichotomy here in the least. And Glen Beck has the fucking nerve to talk about Obama 'trampling' the Constitution and not respecting our founding fathers?? This is also the party that took Jefferson out of Texas textbooks because he was a deist.

[palliddreamer]

No hijack at all, and I wouldn't call ortho 'cushy.' ;)

I'm generally fiscally conservative but socially liberal, however this current republican party frightens me to the core. While I don't much respect the dems, the republicans seem to be mostly batshit insane scary, especially with all the recent violence and hate rhetoric.

The AAP actually released a statement supporting the bill because it's the first time anyone has increased funding to medicaid (relative to medicare) and taken into account child health issues. On the whole, I think it would have been wise to work in some malpractice/tort reform; there are a lot of physicians who would jump on board if they had been thrown that single bone.

[geminigirl]

Could I link this on Facebook please?

[palliddreamer]

Sure. Let me unlock it.

[kthesleepless1t]

Hear, hear!

[pink_pet]

A friend linked me to this, and I've been spending way too much time reading about it, but thought I'd answer your question

[palliddreamer]

Thanks for your reply! I keep trying to stop debating as well, but to no avail.

I can see some of the argument, especially the part where medical costs would come down if people were paying out of pocket. This is certainly true, and my most conscientious patients are the uninsured. They weigh all their options very carefully and often question whether a test I'm ordering is 'really necessary.' I appreciate it, and in general wouldn't object to giving people a little more skin in the game (though not enough to ever bankrupt them). However we don't and won't ever live in a world without insurance, nor could we function medically without it, right or wrong. Therefore people without insurance get care either through a public safety net or by making a hospital (private or public) eat the cost.

And the other part of their answer is that the hospital should set up a payment plan for the individual to pay them back.This generally happens quite often. One of the problems however is that the federal government prohibits hospitals