Do the Homeless Get Free Medical Treatment at American Hospitals?

[Tora Ziyal]

^That's horrible, teya. All insurance companies have an appeals process -- has she tried that yet?

 

[teya]

^ Yep. She started fighting at 38 & is still fighting.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

^ OMG, that's awful!

 

[propita]

^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.

Note: using the general "you"

Don't you love it when you intend to say one thing, it comes out wrong, and then someone straightens it all out? At those times, I always think, "Now why couldn't I have put it like that and avoided the confusion?" **sigh**

teya, that just sucks. For the money blown on these ambulance abusers I cited, your SIL could have her surgery and there'd be lots left over!!

 

[DanCPA]

They're not going to go away either way.

Some of them will.

 

[DanCPA]

I've never seen anyone turned away. I've seen some people with huge bills that cause them credit problems later... but never denied

I realize what the value of anecdotal evidence is (read: virtually none), on both sides of the issue. However, we are all colored by our own experiences.

All I can tell you is this: I live in the United States. I have not had health insurance for many years. And health care, including routine preventative, what we call "urgent care," and emergency, has never been denied to me because of my ability to pay. Doctors, urgent care centers, hospitals... all have been willing to work with me as someone who did not have health insurance and could not simply fork over thousands of dollars out of pocket. In some cases, it was by setting up payment plans that I could manage. In other cases, it was by reducing the bill by a substantial amount. On a daily basis, I have to take an extremely expensive medication that the maker, AstraZeneca, provides to me at absolutely no cost because I can't afford it on my own.

In short, I have found the notion of being denied health care in the United States because you can't afford it to be as much of a myth as many of you claim to have found things about 'socialized' systems to be myths.

All I can say is, you've been very fortunate in your experiences.

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

Never... Obama will create new hearts

Fortunately, we over in the civilized world, have developed this wonderful new concept known as a "line".

And the DMV and post office have developed them also. And there are times when you have to wait an hour or more for the DMV in California. If someone needs a surgery and the wait is 4 years? What happens then?

 

[Amaris]

I realize what the value of anecdotal evidence is (read: virtually none), on both sides of the issue. However, we are all colored by our own experiences.

All I can tell you is this: I live in the United States. I have not had health insurance for many years. And health care, including routine preventative, what we call "urgent care," and emergency, has never been denied to me because of my ability to pay. Doctors, urgent care centers, hospitals... all have been willing to work with me as someone who did not have health insurance and could not simply fork over thousands of dollars out of pocket. In some cases, it was by setting up payment plans that I could manage. In other cases, it was by reducing the bill by a substantial amount. On a daily basis, I have to take an extremely expensive medication that the maker, AstraZeneca, provides to me at absolutely no cost because I can't afford it on my own.

In short, I have found the notion of being denied health care in the United States because you can't afford it to be as much of a myth as many of you claim to have found things about 'socialized' systems to be myths.

All I can say is, you've been very fortunate in your experiences.

Very fortunate, indeed. I could wish for that kind of fortune.

 

[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.

Note: using the general "you"

Don't you love it when you intend to say one thing, it comes out wrong, and then someone straightens it all out? At those times, I always think, "Now why couldn't I have put it like that and avoided the confusion?" **sigh**

It happens to me all the time. I get ragged on for making walls of text, but it seems like if I try to get a point across in fewer then nine paragraphs people think I'm arguing the opposite.

In fairness, I wasn't being particularly clear. I entered this thread only half-assedly, because it's tiring arguing for universal healthcare. So I'll make my position completely unambiguous: every major argument against socialized health care in the United States is based either in lies and misinformation exploiting the ignorant, or in moral repugnancy. It is cheaper, more efficient, more effective, more pragmatic, more rational, and more humane than the US system and we're the only nation that has the means but are too stupid and selfish to haul our fat asses out of the dark ages and just fucking do it.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

They're not going to go away either way.

Some of them will.

Why? You don't think there will be a market to cater for those who want premium health care service at a premium price?

And the DMV and post office have developed them also. And there are times when you have to wait an hour or more for the DMV in California. If someone needs a surgery and the wait is 4 years? What happens then?

The DMV isn't the equivalent of surgery (at least, not emergency surgery). The DMV is where people go for routine things and all have to enter the same line. Hospitals can separate the lines for checkups from the line for surgery.

 

[DanCPA]

They're not going to go away either way.

Some of them will.

Why? You don't think there will be a market to cater for those who want premium health care service at a premium price?

A much smaller one. The price of these premium plans will soar and less people will be able to have them.

And the DMV and post office have developed them also. And there are times when you have to wait an hour or more for the DMV in California. If someone needs a surgery and the wait is 4 years? What happens then?

The DMV isn't the equivalent of surgery (at least, not emergency surgery). The DMV is where people go for routine things and all have to enter the same line. Hospitals can separate the lines for checkups from the line for surgery.

True, but in the end there are still limited resources. I understand the benefits of socializing medicine... but when you go to the poorest neighborhoods in our nation, there is near universal health care because of programs for the poor... and they have the worst care! King hospital in LA was a disaster. It was shut down. And now the government is going to pay less for procedures... It won't end well

 

[RyanKCR]

I realize what the value of anecdotal evidence is (read: virtually none), on both sides of the issue. However, we are all colored by our own experiences.

All I can tell you is this: I live in the United States. I have not had health insurance for many years. And health care, including routine preventative, what we call "urgent care," and emergency, has never been denied to me because of my ability to pay. Doctors, urgent care centers, hospitals... all have been willing to work with me as someone who did not have health insurance and could not simply fork over thousands of dollars out of pocket. In some cases, it was by setting up payment plans that I could manage. In other cases, it was by reducing the bill by a substantial amount. On a daily basis, I have to take an extremely expensive medication that the maker, AstraZeneca, provides to me at absolutely no cost because I can't afford it on my own.

In short, I have found the notion of being denied health care in the United States because you can't afford it to be as much of a myth as many of you claim to have found things about 'socialized' systems to be myths.

All I can say is, you've been very fortunate in your experiences.

He's not alone. I've done the same many times and I know many people who are able to do the same.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I realize what the value of anecdotal evidence is (read: virtually none), on both sides of the issue. However, we are all colored by our own experiences.

All I can tell you is this: I live in the United States. I have not had health insurance for many years. And health care, including routine preventative, what we call "urgent care," and emergency, has never been denied to me because of my ability to pay. Doctors, urgent care centers, hospitals... all have been willing to work with me as someone who did not have health insurance and could not simply fork over thousands of dollars out of pocket. In some cases, it was by setting up payment plans that I could manage. In other cases, it was by reducing the bill by a substantial amount. On a daily basis, I have to take an extremely expensive medication that the maker, AstraZeneca, provides to me at absolutely no cost because I can't afford it on my own.

In short, I have found the notion of being denied health care in the United States because you can't afford it to be as much of a myth as many of you claim to have found things about 'socialized' systems to be myths.

All I can say is, you've been very fortunate in your experiences.

He's not alone. I've done the same many times and I know many people who are able to do the same.

What do you want me to say? "Good for you"? Is that your argument against universal coverage? I'm not buying it.

You are lucky that it works for you, and it's certainly fortunate for those who can get by purely on cash, but that is not everyone, and we shouldn't leave them out in the cold just because you are already taken care of.

By that logic, I shouldn't want any changes at all, because I already have coverage, so why should I give a shit about anyone else?

The level of selfishness on display by opponents of universal coverage really is astonishing sometimes.

 

[RyanKCR]

All I can say is, you've been very fortunate in your experiences.

He's not alone. I've done the same many times and I know many people who are able to do the same.

What do you want me to say? "Good for you"? Is that your argument against universal coverage? I'm not buying it.

You are lucky that it works for you, and it's certainly fortunate for those who can get by purely on cash, but that is not everyone, and we shouldn't leave them out in the cold just because you are already taken care of.

By that logic, I shouldn't want any changes at all, because I already have coverage, so why should I give a shit about anyone else?

The level of selfishness on display by opponents of universal coverage really is astonishing sometimes.

Who said I was taken care of? Ever since the ACA was passed my costs and many other people's costs have risen considerably. How is that helping? UHC will make things worse quality wise. If things are expensive now they will be outragously so with UHC.

 

[Amaris]

He's not alone. I've done the same many times and I know many people who are able to do the same.

What do you want me to say? "Good for you"? Is that your argument against universal coverage? I'm not buying it.

You are lucky that it works for you, and it's certainly fortunate for those who can get by purely on cash, but that is not everyone, and we shouldn't leave them out in the cold just because you are already taken care of.

By that logic, I shouldn't want any changes at all, because I already have coverage, so why should I give a shit about anyone else?

The level of selfishness on display by opponents of universal coverage really is astonishing sometimes.

Who said I was taken care of? Ever since the ACA was passed my costs and many other people's costs have risen considerably. How is that helping? UHC will make things worse quality wise. If things are expensive now they will be outragously so with UHC.

It's not Universal Healthcare. Also, it's still going into effect. Your increasing costs aren't being caused by that.

 

[nightwind1]

What do you want me to say? "Good for you"? Is that your argument against universal coverage? I'm not buying it.

You are lucky that it works for you, and it's certainly fortunate for those who can get by purely on cash, but that is not everyone, and we shouldn't leave them out in the cold just because you are already taken care of.

By that logic, I shouldn't want any changes at all, because I already have coverage, so why should I give a shit about anyone else?

The level of selfishness on display by opponents of universal coverage really is astonishing sometimes.

Who said I was taken care of? Ever since the ACA was passed my costs and many other people's costs have risen considerably. How is that helping? UHC will make things worse quality wise. If things are expensive now they will be outragously so with UHC.

It's not Universal Healthcare. Also, it's still going into effect. Your increasing costs aren't being caused by that.

Exactly.

I think their costs are going up because of all of the people taking advantage of "free" healthcare, and the healthcare providers jacking prices to make up for it.

 

[RyanKCR]

Who said I was taken care of? Ever since the ACA was passed my costs and many other people's costs have risen considerably. How is that helping? UHC will make things worse quality wise. If things are expensive now they will be outragously so with UHC.

It's not Universal Healthcare. Also, it's still going into effect. Your increasing costs aren't being caused by that.

Exactly.

I think their costs are going up because of all of the people taking advantage of "free" healthcare, and the healthcare providers jacking prices to make up for it.

Not really.

 

[Amaris]

It's not Universal Healthcare. Also, it's still going into effect. Your increasing costs aren't being caused by that.

Exactly.

I think their costs are going up because of all of the people taking advantage of "free" healthcare, and the healthcare providers jacking prices to make up for it.

Not really.

How dare they insure young, healthy people against the future, where they may develop health problems that come with older age! Why, that's almost the entire purpose of health insurance!

Seriously, the article states that benefits will improve for young people, though at the same time, rates may rise for some. You know what that money will do? Help you. You know, because you'll be in the same system. It's just common sense.

 

[RyanKCR]

Exactly.

I think their costs are going up because of all of the people taking advantage of "free" healthcare, and the healthcare providers jacking prices to make up for it.

Not really.

How dare they insure young, healthy people against the future, where they may develop health problems that come with older age! Why, that's almost the entire purpose of health insurance!

Seriously, the article states that benefits will improve for young people, though at the same time, rates may rise for some. You know what that money will do? Help you. You know, because you'll be in the same system. It's just common sense.

A system I can barely afford and may soon not be able to afford. Again I ask how is that a good thing? Did you notice how the article does not address people in my situation?

 

[Amaris]

Not really.

How dare they insure young, healthy people against the future, where they may develop health problems that come with older age! Why, that's almost the entire purpose of health insurance!

Seriously, the article states that benefits will improve for young people, though at the same time, rates may rise for some. You know what that money will do? Help you. You know, because you'll be in the same system. It's just common sense.

A system I can barely afford and may soon not be able to afford. Again I ask how is that a good thing? Did you notice how the article does not address people in my situation?

Because the article is about healthy, young people. Are you either of these things?

 

[RyanKCR]

How dare they insure young, healthy people against the future, where they may develop health problems that come with older age! Why, that's almost the entire purpose of health insurance!

Seriously, the article states that benefits will improve for young people, though at the same time, rates may rise for some. You know what that money will do? Help you. You know, because you'll be in the same system. It's just common sense.

A system I can barely afford and may soon not be able to afford. Again I ask how is that a good thing? Did you notice how the article does not address people in my situation?

Because the article is about healthy, young people. Are you either of these things?

And that's the point. ACA will screw over people like me and families with children like me.