Comments on: UNINSURED INCREASE: MEANINGLESS BS

By: Dennis

Dennis — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 16:16:31 +0000

I am astounded by anyone, including the President, who asserts that Americans have access to health care via ERs, as assured by EMTALA. I wonder how long such persons would hold that view if (1) they were to be without health insurance coverage, and (2) diagnosed in the ER as having a malignancy that without agressive treatment would be fatal. That treatment won’t be done in the ER, nor will it be done by any provider without a significant — and likley financially crippling — out-of-pocket expense — if such treatment is available, at all. Change the scenario just a bit. The uninsured person, let’s say a 55-year old man who works for a small repair shop that does not offer health insurance coverage, has serious heart disease and for whom a transplant would be the only effective treatment. Such treatment for that man will never happen. He will likely cease working, apply for social security disability benefits, likely get them, wait 24-months for Medicare coverage to begin — and if he survives the 2-year wait, qualify for a medically necessary transplant. But another 55-year old man with the same condition, who happens to work for a company that offers health insurance coverage, including medically necessary transpants, will receive that care if a replacement heart is available. That is a crazy, grossly inequitable, and mean system for which Americans should be ashamed.

By: Catron

Catron — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:20:41 +0000

Not all hospitals are required to comply with EMTALA.

80% of community hospitals would go out of business overnight if they stopped participating in Medicare. So, if you’re suggesting that any statistically significant number turn uninsured patients away by forgoing participation in Medicare, it’s nonsense.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:10:22 +0000

And actually, not all hospitals are required to comply with EMTALA. It’s only if they take Medicare money. From your link:

“In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual’s ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented.”

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:48:09 +0000

Maybe you should cancel your insurance and go a couple of years as one of the “uninsured”. Since you seem to think it’s no big deal being uninsured it won’t be too much of a hardship for you. Then come back here and tell us what it’s really like.

I’d bet that after a while you wish you were somewhere like the UK, France, or Canada where the health care system works better and cheaper than ours.

By: Catron

Catron — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:58:47 +0000

You have (once again) missed the point. It is as follows: If we treat the REAL disease (via free market reforms), the “uninsured problem” will go away.

If we go along with more government meddling, neither the disease nor the symptom will be cured (as Massachusetts demonstrates).

By: Marc Brown

Marc Brown — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:51:09 +0000

Actually, the number of Americans without insurance at some point in the year is more like 60 million. Do you think it’s good that so mnay people drop in and out of such a vital service?

And no, ER is not an ‘efficient’ use of health resoureces for the uninsured, and yes, you do have some (but not nearly enough) decent primary and health centre coverage - which guess what is mostly state provided.