Do the Homeless Get Free Medical Treatment at American Hospitals?

[marksound]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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?

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

 

[ATimson]

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]

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?

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

 

[marksound]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

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.

Someone already decides who gets what and how much of it: the private insurance companies. They can refuse to insure people with pre-existing conditions, deny claims for care that the patient's doctor orders, and so on.

 

[propita]

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?

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

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?

I should be clearer, I'm not talking about life-saving care, or even regular preventive care for children OR adults. I'm talking about the abusers.

Locally, there's two homeless guys who call for ambulance rides averaging twice a day. And half the time, they leave the hospital soon after arrival because they didn't want to wait more than five minutes. I'm not joking. Big interview in the local paper, direct quotes of them being irate that people were not kowtowing to their wants. We're talking literally hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, plus the unavailability of the ambulance for others who are actually having emergencies.

Hubby was on call this past weekend. A parent called him--child receiving free medical care and the formula she opened was the wrong one. Okay, she had enough for the weekend, so fix it Monday, right? No! She wanted it fixed NOW, regardless of the costs to the hospital (read CA taxpayers) to get both a pharmacist into the office and the deliveryman on a Sunday (this department is closed weekends, but with people on call for emergencies). True, there was a delivery error (long before Hubby started working there), but she signed for the item without checking. The delivery person is delivering, not checking prescriptions--not qualified. Had she checked, as she was supposed to, there would have been no false-emergency. This was formula with a few nutritional additives, not medication.

These the kinds of attitude that are wrong. Not the "I'm out of insulin" or "my child just broke their arm and needs help now" things, or the once-a-year well-child checkup which can catch problems early.

 

[Sector 7]

What if you are foreigner and there is an emergency?

Surely they get a cast for a broken leg or something, but do they get chemo? Do they get insuline, etc.?

To both questions: Hospitals in the US [those defined as Regional Medical Centers, but not private hospitals] are required to provide "life-saving treatment" and "stabilizing care" to those whose lives would be at risk without such care. In short, if you are dying they will save your life... this means making sure you are stable enough to leave the hospital. This policy is posted at every Emergency Room I have seen.
This does NOT mean you will not be billed for these services. Several hospitals now have "charity care" / "financial assistance" programs which are based upon income and ability to pay for care and treatment.
Example: You will get X-rays and a cast for a broken bone... and a note telling you to follow up with your own doctor. You may get a prescription for pain or anti-biotic, but it is up to you to get it filled elsewhere.
Example: You are in diabetic shock. The ER will give you insulin/stabilize your blood sugar levels. Once it is normal again, you will be sent home with prescription/advice to follow up with your own doctor.

I hope this helps answer your questions.

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?

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

I agree.
I also agree with those who said President Obama did not have the support to pass a "single payor" system. He passed what he could. I remember when First Lady Hillary Clinton championed Universal Healthcare, but was unable to get it passed by Congress.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

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.

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?

I should be clearer, I'm not talking about life-saving care, or even regular preventive care for children OR adults. I'm talking about the abusers.

Locally, there's two homeless guys who call for ambulance rides averaging twice a day. And half the time, they leave the hospital soon after arrival because they didn't want to wait more than five minutes. I'm not joking. Big interview in the local paper, direct quotes of them being irate that people were not kowtowing to their wants. We're talking literally hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, plus the unavailability of the ambulance for others who are actually having emergencies.

Hubby was on call this past weekend. A parent called him--child receiving free medical care and the formula she opened was the wrong one. Okay, she had enough for the weekend, so fix it Monday, right? No! She wanted it fixed NOW, regardless of the costs to the hospital (read CA taxpayers) to get both a pharmacist into the office and the deliveryman on a Sunday (this department is closed weekends, but with people on call for emergencies). True, there was a delivery error (long before Hubby started working there), but she signed for the item without checking. The delivery person is delivering, not checking prescriptions--not qualified. Had she checked, as she was supposed to, there would have been no false-emergency. This was formula with a few nutritional additives, not medication.

These the kinds of attitude that are wrong. Not the "I'm out of insulin" or "my child just broke their arm and needs help now" things, or the once-a-year well-child checkup which can catch problems early.

What this tells me is that the resources in that area are not stretched so thin that they can't accommodate the whiners and fraudsters. That doesn't excuse those people's behavior, but it demonstrates that the situation isn't so bad that they're about to start rationing.

If it does get bad, guess what? People making frivolous or non-emergency calls will be told they just have to wait. Big deal.

 

[propita]

No, they don't have to wait. The ambulance company was sued in the past for doing just that, so they answer every call. And laws were enacted, not for the whiners but for the legitimate errors by medical personnel, which carry over to allow the whiners to abuse them.

As I said, there are legitimate medical issues requiring immediate assistance, even by the whiners and abusers. And the whiners and abusers shouldn't have to grovel to receive it. But they should follow the rules and they should not seek unneeded special priorities under circumstances that don't require them, taking resources away from others who actually DO require them at that moment. We're not talking emergencies here, just routine care.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

No, they don't have to wait. The ambulance company was sued in the past for doing just that, so they answer every call. And laws were enacted, not for the whiners but for the legitimate errors by medical personnel, which carry over to allow the whiners to abuse them.

As I said, there are legitimate medical issues requiring immediate assistance, even by the whiners and abusers. And the whiners and abusers shouldn't have to grovel to receive it. But they should follow the rules and they should not seek unneeded special priorities under circumstances that don't require them, taking resources away from others who actually DO require them at that moment. We're not talking emergencies here, just routine care.

How does that work? What people who need immediate attention aren't getting it because of fraudsters and whiners? It is not illegal to triage.

 

[Gaith]

Locally, there's two homeless guys who call for ambulance rides averaging twice a day. And half the time, they leave the hospital soon after arrival because they didn't want to wait more than five minutes. I'm not joking. Big interview in the local paper, direct quotes of them being irate that people were not kowtowing to their wants. We're talking literally hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, plus the unavailability of the ambulance for others who are actually having emergencies.

Surely, then, they could be prosecuted for fraudelent requests for emergency care?

Locally, there's two homeless guys who call for ambulance rides averaging twice a day. And half the time, they leave the hospital soon after arrival because they didn't want to wait more than five minutes. I'm not joking. Big interview in the local paper, direct quotes of them being irate that people were not kowtowing to their wants. We're talking literally hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, plus the unavailability of the ambulance for others who are actually having emergencies.

Hubby was on call this past weekend. A parent called him--child receiving free medical care and the formula she opened was the wrong one. Okay, she had enough for the weekend, so fix it Monday, right? No! She wanted it fixed NOW, regardless of the costs to the hospital (read CA taxpayers) to get both a pharmacist into the office and the deliveryman on a Sunday (this department is closed weekends, but with people on call for emergencies). True, there was a delivery error (long before Hubby started working there), but she signed for the item without checking. The delivery person is delivering, not checking prescriptions--not qualified. Had she checked, as she was supposed to, there would have been no false-emergency. This was formula with a few nutritional additives, not medication.

Sounds to me as though that's the sort of abuse of public resources that "conservative" politicians should concentrate on addressing andcurbing, instead of arguing against healthcare for those who actually do desperately need it.

It's understandable and even laudable that liberals, in their determination to save lives and livelihoods, set up systems that can occasionally be misused in these sorts of ways. But, without excusing the actions of abusers, I'd rather society overreach in such matters than under-reach.

 

[bigdaddy]

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.

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).

Exactly. I'm amazed by what people like to see in their own head.

Obama had the 60 votes, and the house. He wanted to work with the Republicans who didn't want health care, who don't want to work with Obama. Obama wasted time instead of actually fighting for what he supposedly wanted, he backed down and watered the bill down for no reason.

Obama wanted health care reform, Republicans didn't. Trying to do some BS on "working together" was and still is a waste of time.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

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).

Exactly. I'm amazed by what people like to see in their own head.

Obama had the 60 votes, and the house. He wanted to work with the Republicans who didn't want health care, who don't want to work with Obama. Obama wasted time instead of actually fighting for what he supposedly wanted, he backed down and watered the bill down for no reason.

Obama wanted health care reform, Republicans didn't. Trying to do some BS on "working together" was and still is a waste of time.

Obama never had sufficient votes in the House or the Senate to pass a single-payer system. Ever. This is a bizarre myth.

 

[PsychoPere]

And he never had those 60 votes in the Senate in any practical sense, due to Republican obstructionism (see: Al Franken's election), due to illness (see: Robert Byrd's hospitalization), and due to death (see: Ted Kennedy).