Do the Homeless Get Free Medical Treatment at American Hospitals?

[Count Zero]

You get treated but you end up with a high bill unless you have insurance. Don't travel to the US without insurance because you might end up with a bill of 1000s of dollars. Happened to the friend of an acquaintance.

[bigdaddy]

milo bloom wrote:

---

While I agree Obamacare is a poor substitute for universal/single-payer what-have-you, I still support it because it has managed to push the idea into the public discourse that access to healthcare just might be a human right. There's no way Obama could have passed single-payer, but now us far left loony liberals have something to sink our teeth into and drag the conversation back to the left a little bit.

Actually Obama could have based a single payer system. He had the votes in the house and the senate, but he didn't push for it hard enough, because, like most liberals, he's a whiney crybaby that just sits in the corner and bitches about Republicans instead of taking them on. I will never forgive him for the fact he just sat around and did nothing while the bill got watered down into nothing. Companies shouldn't have control over my health and profit from me being sick, or let me die because it's cheaper.

Tora Ziyal
I couldn't get health care through my job, because of Mass Health. At Lowes you could get insurance for part time workers until Masshealth passed, then it was dropped. Then I quit that job, and got a seasonal one that pays more. So now even through I'm not employed, I'll probably have to pay some stupid monthly fee based on a jobI no longer have.

[Robert Maxwell]

bigdaddy wrote:

---

Actually Obama could have based a single payer system. He had the votes in the house and the senate, but he didn't push for it hard enough, because, like most liberals, he's a whiney crybaby that just sits in the corner and bitches about Republicans instead of taking them on. I will never forgive him for the fact he just sat around and did nothing while the bill got watered down into nothing. Companies shouldn't have control over my health and profit from me being sick, or let me die because it's cheaper.

Absolute nonsense that isn't even a little bit true. Obama wanted a public option and fought hard for it. He didn't even have the votes for that, not even from his own party, even though he said there would be no healthcare reform without it. Congress called his bluff and he had to drop it, which resulted in the individual mandate instead. To say we didn't get single-payer because Obama didn't "fight hard enough" is just factually wrong. It wasn't going to happen, not with the makeup of Congress at the time. Sorry.

[Shaw]

Robert Maxwell wrote:

---

Absolute nonsense that isn't even a little bit true. Obama wanted a public option and fought hard for it. He didn't even have the votes for that, not even from his own party, even though he said there would be no healthcare reform without it. Congress called his bluff and he had to drop it, which resulted in the individual mandate instead. To say we didn't get single-payer because Obama didn't "fight hard enough" is just factually wrong. It wasn't going to happen, not with the makeup of Congress at the time. Sorry.

Actually, Obama did have the votes for a single payer system but wanted a bipartisan solution. The (single) Republican that Obama targeted was Olympia Snowe. The plan was watered down until she was willing to vote for it in the Senate Finance Committee (which she did), but then she voted against it in the final senate vote (making it pretty much a wasted effort and a lost opportunity for the rest of us).

At the time it seemed like Obama didn't want to believe what Republicans were saying quite loudly... they didn't care what the costs to the country, they were going to do anything to stop him from being successful at anything if they could help it so he would be a one term president. This clashed with Obama's priorities of the early days of his presidency where he put bipartisanship above anything else (including healthcare for the rest of us).

The thing is, Obamacare isn't just based on Romney's plan, it is based largely on the Republican alternative proposal to Hillary Clinton's 1993 healthcare plan. Obama wanted a bipartisan solution when one wasn't needed or even (in my opinion) possible.

I don't think we will know why Obama truly made the move he did until after he is out of office, but I'm guessing that he thought the Republicans were just making a lot of noise back then but would be reasonable if presented with a reasonable plan. Plus it should be noted that Obama is more conservative than most Democrats (many of his policy choices mirror the types Nixon or George HW Bush would have made actually... though we would have gotten better healthcare from Nixon). The fallout from the Republican party being hijacked by the right is that most everyone else ends up a Democrat... which hurts debate.

[Shaw]

Ro_Laren wrote:

---

I’ve been under the impression (perhaps just from TV), that homeless people in America can go to the hospital and receive medical treatment for free. They sometimes don’t give their name or use something like “John Doe” or “Jane Doe.” Is that paid by Medicare or Medicaid (I can’t remember the difference between the two)?

If homeless people can get treatment for free, what is to stop someone that isn’t homeless from getting free treatment at the hospital? What if you show up with an emergency, but refuse to give your name or a fake name? I know from experience, that when you show up to the hospital you have to give your name and insurance info (I had my appendix taken out in college). But, if you had a real emergency that had to be treated right away like a heart attack, etc., could you get away with free treatment? If you didn’t have any ID on me, does that mean you can get away with saying you are homeless and not have to pay?

Nothing is free... even if you don't pay right away, the bill will follow you. You can't be refused because you can't pay at the time, but there is always a bill.

You can not get treatment (unless your unconscious) until you give consent... which requires identification.

Like voter fraud, these types of scenarios (of hiding IDs) are so rare as to be laughable... they are put forward as talking points. People who can't pay have outstanding bills in limbo while the actual costs are past onto the rest of us. But as soon as someone with one of those bills attempts to make their lives a little better (with, say, a job) their wages will end up garnished pushing them back down... all because of an emergency room visit.

Nothing is free.

[Carcazoid]

Nothing is free.

We have a winner!

Even if a patient is treated at no charge to himself, someone will pay. The costs incurred by the health care provider are passed on to other patients and their insurance companies. The cost of the bills paid by insurance companies is passed on to insureds in the form of premiums.

Nothing is free. Someone will pay. That's the way the world works.

[Robert Maxwell]

Shaw wrote:

---

Actually, Obama did have the votes for a single payer system but wanted a bipartisan solution. The (single) Republican that Obama targeted was Olympia Snowe. The plan was watered down until she was willing to vote for it in the Senate Finance Committee (which she did), but then she voted against it in the final senate vote (making it pretty much a wasted effort and a lost opportunity for the rest of us).

At the time it seemed like Obama didn't want to believe what Republicans were saying quite loudly... they didn't care what the costs to the country, they were going to do anything to stop him from being successful at anything if they could help it so he would be a one term president. This clashed with Obama's priorities of the early days of his presidency where he put bipartisanship above anything else (including healthcare for the rest of us).

The thing is, Obamacare isn't just based on Romney's plan, it is based largely on the Republican alternative proposal to Hillary Clinton's 1993 healthcare plan. Obama wanted a bipartisan solution when one wasn't needed or even (in my opinion) possible.

I don't think we will know why Obama truly made the move he did until after he is out of office, but I'm guessing that he thought the Republicans were just making a lot of noise back then but would be reasonable if presented with a reasonable plan. Plus it should be noted that Obama is more conservative than most Democrats (many of his policy choices mirror the types Nixon or George HW Bush would have made actually... though we would have gotten better healthcare from Nixon). The fallout from the Republican party being hijacked by the right is that most everyone else ends up a Democrat... which hurts debate.

You are right on a lot of those details but wrong about the starting point. He did not have the votes for a single-payer system. Ever. This is a Republican lie--that Obama's party controlled the entire Congress and pushed the individual mandate because it was the only solution they could come up with. It's not true. The Democratic majority in the House was made up of quite a few Blue Dogs, who would not vote for a public option, much less single-payer. These were folks who might as well have been Republicans. So, Obama then decided to approach a bipartisan solution, so he could get enough Republicans on board to pass it without all the House Democrats voting for it. And you're right, he thought Republicans would vote for a reasonable plan and be willing to compromise. That's why he tried so hard to work with them on this. But they were intent on killing it, any way they could. In the end, a watered-down measure was produced that at least his own party would vote for, but obviously that didn't have a public option.

But the public option was not dropped because of Republicans, it was dropped because of Democrats, and single-payer was simply never on the table, considered politically impossible.

[Kelthaz]

propita wrote:

---

While Hubby and I are Dems, we agree with Romney on 25% (not 47%). Hubby's seeing a lot of this on the medical side. My attorney friends tell me about it on the legal side. Yes, there are a lot of deserving people needing medical and legal help who can't pay for it, but there's also a good number who either don't deserve it or are wrongfully far more demanding than anyone working their ass off to pay for it themselves.

Who the hell are you to decide who deserves life-saving medical treatment and who doesn't? Your child at home gets a little mouthy, so you cut off her insulin until she behaves?

[Robert Maxwell]

Kelthaz wrote:

---

Who the hell are you to decide who deserves life-saving medical treatment and who doesn't? Your child at home gets a little mouthy, so you cut off her insulin until she behaves?

For real. I do not want someone arbitrarily deciding who "deserves" medical care and who doesn't.

[ATimson]

Kelthaz wrote:

---

Who the hell are you to decide who deserves life-saving medical treatment and who doesn't?

The person who gets stuck with the bill?

[Robert Maxwell]

ATimson wrote:

---

The person who gets stuck with the bill?

So people who can't afford medical care should have to die?

[Carcazoid]

Robert Maxwell wrote:

---

For real. I do not want someone arbitrarily deciding who "deserves" medical care and who doesn't.

But that's exactly what will happen when health care is "free". There will eventually not be enough money to pay for everything for everyone, so someone will have to decide who gets what, and how much of it. That someone will be the bureaucracy created by the new system.

It will cost a fortune to run, it will be unbelievably inefficient, and will be accountable to no one but itself.

Deny it all you want, but just watch.

[Robert Maxwell]

Carcazoid wrote:

---

But that's exactly what will happen when health care is "free". There will eventually not be enough money to pay for everything for everyone, so someone will have to decide who gets what, and how much of it. That someone will be the bureaucracy created by the new system.

It will cost a fortune to run, it will be unbelievably inefficient, and will be accountable to no one but itself.

Deny it all you want, but just watch.

Absolute nonsense with no factual basis.

[Kelthaz]

Carcazoid wrote:

---

But that's exactly what will happen when health care is "free". There will eventually not be enough money to pay for everything for everyone, so someone will have to decide who gets what, and how much of it. That someone will be the bureaucracy created by the new system.

It will cost a fortune to run, it will be unbelievably inefficient, and will be accountable to no one but itself.

Deny it all you want, but just watch.

I have been watching. The vast majority of the civilized world already has universal health care including my home country of Canada. There's dozens of examples of it working just fine while reducing the overall cost to the country and not a single example of where it failed. Where people get this nonsensical death panel crap I have no idea.

[thestrangequark]

^Yeah, putting aside the repellant moral insufficiency of being anti-universal health, it's just plain impractical! If you care so much about money and pragmatism, you should be all for universal health care.