Do the Homeless Get Free Medical Treatment at American Hospitals?

[DanCPA]

Of course there are restrictions. There is a reason that affluent people from these nations come to our hospitals and do not stay in their system. Supplies and resources are limited and must be rationed by someone.

CoveTom wrote:

---

So this systems place no restrictions what-so-ever on health care? There's not a single treatment, medication, or procedure that is ever denied? For anyone? Because that's what I was asking about.

[CoveTom]

^ And that's my point. The post to which I was replying said it was an "abusrd" notion that universal or "socialized" healthcare systems do not have unlimited money and, therefore, someone somewhere must eventually decide what to cover and what not to cover. It's true of insurance companies today and it will be true of government tomorrow. Yet somehow it is eeeeeeeeevil when insurance companies do it, but fair and benevolent when government does it. Go figure.

[DanCPA]

CoveTom wrote:

---

Go figure.

People don't listen to facts... they choose to live in fantasy.
They mocked "death panels." But eventually there is going to be one machine and two people that need it and someone will choose who gets it. There is going to be someone that will decide that a treatment is not likely to have significant effect and decline it. Resources are not limitless. Whatever you call the decision makers, someone will be making those decisions.

[Alidar Jarok]

The thing is, though, it's not serious medical care that gets rationed because it's not an every day need. With pre-planning, it's possible to make sure everyone who needs it gets it. It's routine care that gets rationed instead, but that strikes me as less harmful.

Rich people come here because we have some of the best hospitals. However, these are hospitals that the poor in our country can't go to either. They are elite hospitals deigned specifically for those who want to pay more. They're not going to go away either way.

[Robert Maxwell]

CoveTom wrote:

---

^ And that's my point. The post to which I was replying said it was an "abusrd" notion that universal or "socialized" healthcare systems do not have unlimited money and, therefore, someone somewhere must eventually decide what to cover and what not to cover. It's true of insurance companies today and it will be true of government tomorrow. Yet somehow it is eeeeeeeeevil when insurance companies do it, but fair and benevolent when government does it. Go figure.

You just don't get it.

Some of the most expensive care is already suffering free riders--namely, people who wait until they need emergency care to go to the hospital, then stick everyone else with the bill. This happens now. The situation you're worried about is one in which lifesaving/emergency care is withheld because there isn't enough to go around. The stress is already on that type of care, and we are all paying for it. Moving the stress to routine/preventive care allows for much better planning and much less expense--something you should be in favor of.

Let me tell you a story. I had a friend who was bitten on her ankle by a spider (or something, she was never sure what.) She had no insurance, so she couldn't go to the doctor. The bite turned into a quarter-sized ring which kept growing. She tried to keep it bandaged and clean but there was only so much she could do.

Well, within a couple weeks, she developed a high fever and one of her arms swelled up to three times its normal size. She was rushed to the ER and they had to operate immediately. Basically, the bite had led to a blood infection, which settled into her arm and was working its way to her heart. If she'd waited any longer, she would be dead. She had to spend three weeks in the hospital for observation, too. She did not have one penny to pay for this, given that she had a job that paid slightly over minimum wage (which she lost because she was in the hospital for weeks.) Total cost: about $60,000, paid for by people like you and me.

It probably would've cost a couple hundred bucks' worth of a GP visit and proper disinfecting/bandaging treatment right after the bite happened, if she'd had insurance.

But, no, universal coverage is somehow more expensive and will break the system.

[Kelthaz]

thestrangequark wrote:

---

You and your irrefutable evidence.

It's distressing how often irrefutable evidence has no effect on some people.

CoveTom and TighsEye, let me give you an example. Let's say you're in a grocery store and there's 5 cashiers available and you have groceries you want to buy. All 5 cashiers are currently busy with customers. By your logic, you drop your groceries and go home because there's no available resources for you. Fortunately, we over in the civilized world, have developed this wonderful new concept known as a "line". You see, people will line up in front of the cashier, and, when the person in front of them is finished, the next one moves up to take their place. This way everyone can buy their groceries and everyone is happy. It's pretty revolutionary, I know.

Yes, there are no restrictions what-so-ever on health care for anyone. However, you will have to wait if your case isn't serious. I won't deny that waiting times aren't a serious problem in Canada, but you absolutely will not be refused for anything that you need. And no, you're not going to be left waiting in an ER for 10 hours with a heart attack; you'll be seen immediately, and those with minor issues will be forced to wait longer.

[propita]

Alidar Jarok wrote:

---

It still strikes me as dumb and could be remedied in a better way.

Any idea how the lawsuit ended up?

I didn't look up the case, but I bolded the reference in the following quote. A rather old case (1979) is referred to. All it takes is one or two people to really muck up a system. That's with anything.

While the two men here DO have chronic issues (which I agree, should be treated), their repeated abuse of the ambulance service for non-emergencies (See they will "walk away if they have to wait too long," which someone in a life-threatening situation or even just severe pain is not likely to do) is not justified.

Fresno Bee Feb 12, 2012 wrote:

---

Because the men don't pay for the rides, the bulk of the costs is passed on to others in the form of higher insurance rates. Taxpayers pick up part of the tab through Medi-Cal and other government programs.

Some in the industry say the two are abusing the system, using it as a free taxi service. But the men, who are friends, say they're just trying to get to a hospital for treatment of their chronic illnesses.

Calling 911 when there is no emergency is a crime and there is no law saying the men must be brought to a hospital, but ambulance officials err on the side of caution. They fear liability lawsuits such as a 1979 case in which a sick man called for an ambulance, was not picked up and died.

"We do not refuse any service," said Dan Lynch, Fresno County's emergency medical services director. "If they want to go to the hospital, we will take them. It's easier to take them than to take the time to talk them out of it."

Calling in sick
In 2011, Arana called an ambulance 710 times and McPeters 653 times. In the first 41 days of 2012, they have combined for 136 calls.

Sometimes the men call an ambulance, are brought to a hospital and walk away if they have to wait too long. Then they'll call 911 for a return ride later.

Lynch's office has sent notices to the men, demanding they stop abusing the 911 system. After sending one such notice to Arana last year, Lynch said, his office got an angry phone call from Arana.

In a taped phone conversation with Lynch's office, Arana is heard saying he didn't abuse the system and threatened to call his lawyer.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/02/11/...#storylink=cpy

[teya]

thestrangequark wrote:

---

You and your irrefutable evidence.

Except that none of those systems provide "unlimited healthcare with no restrictions."

That is simply an impossibility. Not everyone is going to get everything.

There are, for example, only so many hearts available for transplant.

[teya]

Kelthaz wrote:

---

It's distressing how often irrefutable evidence has no effect on some people.

CoveTom and TighsEye, let me give you an example. Let's say you're in a grocery store and there's 5 cashiers available and you have groceries you want to buy. All 5 cashiers are currently busy with customers. By your logic, you drop your groceries and go home because there's no available resources for you. Fortunately, we over in the civilized world, have developed this wonderful new concept known as a "line". You see, people will line up in front of the cashier, and, when the person in front of them is finished, the next one moves up to take their place. This way everyone can buy their groceries and everyone is happy. It's pretty revolutionary, I know.

Yes, there are no restrictions what-so-ever on health care for anyone. However, you will have to wait if your case isn't serious. I won't deny that waiting times aren't a serious problem in Canada, but you absolutely will not be refused for anything that you need. And no, you're not going to be left waiting in an ER for 10 hours with a heart attack; you'll be seen immediately, and those with minor issues will be forced to wait longer.

That's very different than what you said before. Details, details.

I've never looked at the Canadian system in that depth, but I'd bet real money that there's a managed care system in place as well. In other words, you can't demand your doctor give you something that's not going to do anything positive for your condition.

[thestrangequark]

^But the American system has the same limitations on treatment -- if not more, and they're imposed by the insurance companies. You certainly can't get any treatment you want here. And just like Americans can do, if someone in a country with socialized health care wants something that is not provided, they can pay for it privately.

[CoveTom]

^ But Kelthaz said, "Yes, there are no restrictions what-so-ever on health care for anyone." You say "You certainly can't get any treatment you want here." Those can't both be true.

[thestrangequark]

^By 'here' I meant the US.

[teya]

thestrangequark wrote:

---

^But the American system has the same limitations on treatment -- if not more, and they're imposed by the insurance companies. You certainly can't get any treatment you want here. And just like Americans can do, if someone in a country with socialized health care wants something that is not provided, they can pay for it privately.

Actually, some restrictions are simply because it's good medicine. We don't give antibiotics for a viral infection anymore. They're worthless for the illness & cause more problems down the road.

And, yes, there are lists for organ transplant. Patients undergo screening to determine if they can handle the follow-up necessary. We're not going to give a new liver to someone who won't quit drinking. If someone can't be compliant with a medication regimen, they're not going to get a new kidney.

An MRI is not the first diagnostic test offered if you have a headache.

And no amount of begging, pleading or offering money is going to get you those things if they aren't medically necessary.

My point is (and this is from 30 years in healthcare administration): All healthcare is rationed. It's not an infinite resource.

In the US, we ration largely on a person's ability to pay for care--and I find that an immoral way of doing things.

[thestrangequark]

^I agree with everything you said. That was the argument I was attempting to make: it is immoral to ration based on ability to pay rather than medical necessity.

[Robert Maxwell]

It seems a lot of the argument against universal coverage/single-payer is the belief that people will "use up" healthcare resources just because they can and because they don't have to pay directly for it. While this is a concern to some extent, it is hardly a fatal flaw, and people already fraudulently consume healthcare resources in the US (such as the homeless guys calling the ambulance in propita's example), so things like that aren't going to change much if we switch to a single-payer system.

What will change is people having access to preventive care, and individuals with chronic conditions being better able to take care of themselves, both of which lead to a reduced reliance on emergency medical services, which are expensive and often very strained.

There will always be abusers. The presence of abusers does not present a valid argument against implementing such a system in the first place. You do what you can to mitigate abuse, you don't just throw out the whole concept.