Workplace Loyalty is Dead

[ll74]

That may be true where you live, but here, a U.S. hospital cannot legally refuse to treat a fatal case of appendicitis simply because the patient lacks insurance coverage. Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), hospitals that participate in Medicare are required to provide a medical screening examination and stabilizing treatment for emergency medical conditions, regardless of a patient’s ability to pay or insurance status. Appendicitis, especially a potentially fatal case, qualifies as an emergency medical condition.

And this would be why hospitals rely on medicaid for subsidy reimbursements...which have now been taken away.

Luckily all of that cost will now lead to hospital costs.skyrocketing and hospitals.closing once BBB subsidies expire.

 

[AlexBailey]

That may be true where you live, but here, a U.S. hospital cannot legally refuse to treat a fatal case of appendicitis simply because the patient lacks insurance coverage. Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), hospitals that participate in Medicare are required to provide a medical screening examination and stabilizing treatment for emergency medical conditions, regardless of a patient’s ability to pay or insurance status. Appendicitis, especially a potentially fatal case, qualifies as an emergency medical condition.

She’s here in the US.

You are out of touch with reality. They treated her. Now she owes the hospital more than a year of her current salary.

Yes it’s true that a hospital cannot turn away a patient in a life threatening situation - they didn’t. What they did do was provide the minimum care required to stabilize her condition, then bill her at the uninsured rate which happens to be more than they would charge an insurance company who gets a pre negotiated price.

When someone can’t pay their bills the hospital passes the cost to other patients.



My wife works in homeless services. She has several elderly widows as clients whose husbands died after long and withering illnesses that exceeded their insurance coverage. They lost their homes and are now on the street or in shelters.

US fuckin’ A

 

[ChloeTzang]

My wife works in homeless services. She has several elderly widows as clients whose husbands died after long and withering illnesses that exceeded their insurance coverage. They lost their homes and are now on the street or in shelters.

US fuckin’ A

Single biggest cause of personal bankruptcies in America. The medical system is basically superb if you have the money or good coverage, and absolute shit if you don't.

Personally I'd rather see us take a State by State approach something similar to the Canadian provinces - it's not the best and it has huge flaws but it beats ending up on the street or not being treated. On the other hand it does result in huge taxation - but on our end we end up paying that in health insurance premiums but without the universal coverage and with all sorts of gaps and shit billing.

I just wish one of the States would bite the bullet, try it and see what happens

 

[ll74]

Single biggest cause of personal bankruptcies in America. The medical system is basically superb if you have the money or good coverage, and absolute shit if you don't.

Personally I'd rather see us take a State by State approach something similar to the Canadian provinces - it's not the best and it has huge flaws but it beats ending up on the street or not being treated. On the other hand it does result in huge taxation - but on our end we end up paying that in health insurance premiums but without the universal coverage and with all sorts of gaps and shit billing.

I just wish one of the States would bite the bullet, try it and see what happens

All I want here in the states is to move employer based healthcare to the government. Not sure whether it would work best at.the federal or state level, but you would take the same money and shift it to a centralized setting.

Seems like a no brainer.

 

[ChloeTzang]

All I want here in the states is to move employer based healthcare to the government. Not sure whether it would work best at.the federal or state level, but you would take the same money and shift it to a centralized setting.

Seems like a no brainer.

It does, doesn't it.

Personally, I think keep the Feds put of it and make it at the State level. It's more manageable that way and allows for a lot of variations and experimentation. It's got to be paid for somehow of course, but there needs to be some equitable baseline of healthcare for everyone

 

[Meekly_Anna]

Perhaps you should think about the beautiful English word ‘human resources’. A resource is something valuable that you exploit for your own benefit until it is depleted.

Apart from that, your healthcare system is pretty broken. It always has been.
Here you go to the clinic when you're ill. There are treatments with co-payments, but these are very few, and never those that involve life support or pain management.
Everyone has health insurance. That's the law. The higher your income, the more expensive, up to a maximum amount. It doesn't go up any more. If your income is within a certain limit, it costs nothing. Incidentally, half is paid by your employer, who wants you to be healthy because they also pay you when you're ill. That's also the law. (Not indefinitely, but for six weeks, after which the health insurance fund pays you).
But unfortunately none of this is for you, because it's socialism, as the idiot in chief reported.

By the way, medicines are actually cheaper here because the health insurance company has to pay for them. They negotiate the prices with the manufacturers. If the prices are too high, they don't pay. If they don't pay, the doctors don't prescribe.
This is monitored by the judiciary. There was a case of a sick child. The drug was supposed to cost around one million euros. The health insurance company said it was too expensive and not profitable. The judge said, ‘You've been fucked in the head, you're paying for it’ and they paid.

 

[AlexBailey]

So,
In the USA insurance is largely connected with employment. Changing jobs can leave you with vulnerable periods of no coverage.

It is a great benefit to employees when they receive medical insurance as part of a benefits package but it is a burden for small business and self-employed. It distracts from business and shunts energy into bureaucracy instead of productive focus.

To have “full coverage” is expensive an elusive - very few employers offer the best packages with the best coverage. Most offer package deals that give employees options to pay extra for lower deductibles, higher maximum payout limits, and fewer coverage exceptions. If you end up needing medical care, the counting of the beans takes priority over a patient’s needs.


As a country we spend ~ twice as much on healthcare and medicine than most other developed nations and still have many gaps and deficiencies, and often poorer quality and outcomes.

Having each state do it in their own way guarantees gaps. Many whole states will go without.




“…promote the general welfare…” - from the preamble of the US Constitution.

 

[eric_erosfan]

It does, doesn't it.

Personally, I think keep the Feds put of it and make it at the State level. It's more manageable that way and allows for a lot of variations and experimentation. It's got to be paid for somehow of course, but there needs to be some equitable baseline of healthcare for everyone

Some states would go bankrupt. A coworker's mother went to the ER for unexplained dizziness. They gave her a CT scan and found nothing. Total bill? $23,000. CT scan alone was $18,000. All billed to Medicare so who knows what the actual payment was. But until these insane medical costs come down state governments can't afford Healthcare.

And the duplication of 50 states doing the same thing? Too inefficient.

 

[HisArpy]

Perhaps you should think about the beautiful English word ‘human resources’. A resource is something valuable that you exploit for your own benefit until it is depleted.

Apart from that, your healthcare system is pretty broken. It always has been.
Here you go to the clinic when you're ill. There are treatments with co-payments, but these are very few, and never those that involve life support or pain management.
Everyone has health insurance. That's the law. The higher your income, the more expensive, up to a maximum amount. It doesn't go up any more. If your income is within a certain limit, it costs nothing. Incidentally, half is paid by your employer, who wants you to be healthy because they also pay you when you're ill. That's also the law. (Not indefinitely, but for six weeks, after which the health insurance fund pays you).
But unfortunately none of this is for you, because it's socialism, as the idiot in chief reported.

By the way, medicines are actually cheaper here because the health insurance company has to pay for them. They negotiate the prices with the manufacturers. If the prices are too high, they don't pay. If they don't pay, the doctors don't prescribe.
This is monitored by the judiciary. There was a case of a sick child. The drug was supposed to cost around one million euros. The health insurance company said it was too expensive and not profitable. The judge said, ‘You've been fucked in the head, you're paying for it’ and they paid.

The main issue with the system you live under is that there are indeed copays, they're just well hidden and you've been brainwashed into thinking you're getting something valuable for free.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Some states would go bankrupt. A coworker's mother went to the ER for unexplained dizziness. They gave her a CT scan and found nothing. Total bill? $23,000. CT scan alone was $18,000. All billed to Medicare so who knows what the actual payment was. But until these insane medical costs come down state governments can't afford Healthcare.

And the duplication of 50 states doing the same thing? Too inefficient.

Most of our States are bigger than a lot of other countries. When you move past the state level, you get into monolithic bureaucracies that become unwieldy and out of control. Managing it at the State level is far more practical, and yes, the insane medical costs are outrageous. That, and we need to do away with the abuility to sue - some kind of generic compensation scheme for fuck-ups is in order to reduce the cist of insurance and bring in some kind of no-fault compensation that does not require years of legal bullshit.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

The main issue with the system you live under is that there are indeed copays, they're just well hidden and you've been brainwashed into thinking you're getting something valuable for free.

You clueless clown, you really make me laugh.
Do you know what taxes are? And what duties are? And what the difference is?
Do you know what a state is? And what it consists of? It is the duty of the strong to protect the weak. If you're not prepared to do that, then nobody will protect you if you're not.
You selfish twat. I know exactly how our state works and everyone can see that yours doesn't.

 

[ChloeTzang]

You clueless clown, you really make me laugh.
Do you know what taxes are? And what duties are? And what the difference is?
Do you know what a state is? And what it consists of? It is the duty of the strong to protect the weak. If you're not prepared to do that, then nobody will protect you if you're not.
You selfish twat. I know exactly how our state works and everyone can see that yours doesn't.

Everyone pays, one way or the other. Healthcare is never free. Either you pay via insurance or you pay via taxes or you pay direct. Payment by taxation spreads the load but tends to result in bureaucrat-heavy systems - the British NHS is a classic example. In between you have systems like Ontario's, which I am a little familiar with (friends who live there) which has a good mixed system, but with some marked inefficiencies and failures in coverage. I took a look at the health system in New Zealand when I was there too, and overall that seems to work fairly well - but it's a small country and they seem to adapt and change things very quickly - the benefits of small size and a "can do" attitude, minimal corruption and a high-trust society.

The Chinese healthcare system now is verging on outrageously good in the cities at least....

 

[AlexBailey]

Everyone pays, one way or the other. Healthcare is never free. Either you pay via insurance or you pay via taxes or you pay direct. Payment by taxation spreads the load but tends to result in bureaucrat-heavy systems - the British NHS is a classic example. In between you have systems like Ontario's, which I am a little familiar with (friends who live there) which has a good mixed system, but with some marked inefficiencies and failures in coverage. I took a look at the health system in New Zealand when I was there too, and overall that seems to work fairly well - but it's a small country and they seem to adapt and change things very quickly - the benefits of small size and a "can do" attitude, minimal corruption and a high-trust society.

The Chinese healthcare system now is verging on outrageously good in the cities at least....

“Can do attitude?”

So not MAGA.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

Everyone pays, one way or the other. Healthcare is never free. Either you pay via insurance or you pay via taxes or you pay direct. Payment by taxation spreads the load but tends to result in bureaucrat-heavy systems - the British NHS is a classic example. In between you have systems like Ontario's, which I am a little familiar with (friends who live there) which has a good mixed system, but with some marked inefficiencies and failures in coverage. I took a look at the health system in New Zealand when I was there too, and overall that seems to work fairly well - but it's a small country and they seem to adapt and change things very quickly - the benefits of small size and a "can do" attitude, minimal corruption and a high-trust society.

The Chinese healthcare system now is verging on outrageously good in the cities at least....

Our system is almost 150 years old. It actually works quite well.
Everyone who earns money pays. The health insurance funds are very large and have weight when negotiating prices for medicines.
Then every employer is obliged to have accident insurance. This pays for all work-related accidents, including commuting accidents.
It is certainly not the best system, but it is stable and has proved its worth. It has already survived two world wars.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Our system is almost 150 years old. It actually works quite well.
Everyone who earns money pays. The health insurance funds are very large and have weight when negotiating prices for medicines.
Then every employer is obliged to have accident insurance. This pays for all work-related accidents, including commuting accidents.
It is certainly not the best system, but it is stable and has proved its worth. It has already survived two world wars.

If you don;t mind me asking, which system is that?

 

[HisArpy]

You clueless clown, you really make me laugh.
Do you know what taxes are? And what duties are? And what the difference is?
Do you know what a state is? And what it consists of? It is the duty of the strong to protect the weak. If you're not prepared to do that, then nobody will protect you if you're not.
You selfish twat. I know exactly how our state works and everyone can see that yours doesn't.

Yes, it's obvious that you know everything, Mr. Wizard.

Still sucks to be you and have to pay extra because you're too fucking dum to understand how things really work.

 

[AlexBailey]

Yes, it's obvious that you know everything, Mr. Wizard.

Still sucks to be you and have to pay extra because you're too fucking dum to understand how things really work.

…, says a wealthy man with the best health insurance money can buy.

 

[HisArpy]

…, says a wealthy man with the best health insurance money can buy.

You had the EXACT same opportunities I had when we were both young. You chose poorly and now you're trying to blame everyone else for the consequences of those poor choices instead of where the blame really lies. On yourself.

 

[icanhelp1]

It does, doesn't it.

Personally, I think keep the Feds put of it and make it at the State level. It's more manageable that way and allows for a lot of variations and experimentation. It's got to be paid for somehow of course, but there needs to be some equitable baseline of healthcare for everyone

Many of us have been suggesting state run healthcare for over a decade. Obama care was and still is a disaster. Congress can do all kinds of things but first we have to stop providing benefits to people who don't belong here.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

If you don;t mind me asking, which system is that?

It is the German social system. It was originally introduced by Chancellor Bismarck because workers there had as many rights as they do in the USA today. He was afraid that there would be a revolution. After a short time, the realisation took hold that glad workers who know that they are covered in the event of illness and accidents simply perform better. Everyone wins, nobody loses.
Even and especially the employers like it.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

…, says a wealthy man with the best health insurance money can buy.

Don't mind answering him. I tried. He's not willing to use whatever is between his ears. Some people are simply beyond help.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

Many of us have been suggesting state run healthcare for over a decade. Obama care was and still is a disaster. Congress can do all kinds of things but first we have to stop providing benefits to people who don't belong here.

Says the guy who's grandparents were illegal immigrants. You disagree? Ask the people living in their own country before the likes of you arrived.

 

[HisArpy]

I think we can all agree that healthcare is too expensive and the insurance industry has been given too much leeway in the areas of coverage as well as the costs. Insurance doesn't cover the things that people really need. Instead it focuses on things most people don't need or use and then charges extra for it in the form of a copay.

Medicine is complicit in this because the wealth that's available is huge and easily tapped resource because society has been trained to accept being preyed upon in this manner.

The difference between conservatives and liberal Democrat is how to address this problem.

Liberal Democrats want everyone else to chip in for their healthcare while they don't do much more than they're doing now. Which is, for the most part, little to nothing. This is linear thinking at it's best; see the problem, have someone else fix it, call it a win.

Conservatives, OTOH, don't look at it that way. We see that there's a problem, but the solution isn't the popular choice because it points the finger of blame exactly where it belongs - government regulation.

Before the ACA, affordable healthcare was tough to get and many people chose to do without because of the cost. This was risky on a personal level but didn't really affect society as a whole because the financial hit in the event of a catastrophe was to the individual not society as a group. This placed the burden where it belonged, on the individual as well as the healthcare industry. An industry which did it's level best (and succeeded) to change the societal viewpoint to one in which an individual's tragedy becomes the responsibility of the whole. To do this, healthcare lobbied government for regulations which made it possible for the industry to reap enormous profits at the expense of public welfare.

This is wrong but the solution cannot be found by thinking linearly.

Instead what needs to be done is 1 of 2 things. Either eliminate governmental regulations which contribute to the burden that's been place on society and let the market sort itself out, or add more regulation to limit how much the industry can profit.

The first will lead to cries of suffering by the masses. The second will lead to cries of suffering by the healthcare industry. The question becomes which is more tolerable. Political ideology determines the viewpoint on that issue. One view is that it's the government's job under the concept of general welfare to provide for the people. The other doesn't agree with that concept because that creates a situation where the government regulation is used to financially enslave everyone by those who contribute least for the benefit of the medical/insurance complex.

This is where we stand today.

 

[HisArpy]

Don't mind answering him. I tried. He's not willing to use whatever is between his ears. Some people are simply beyond help.

I have spent a lifetime standing on my own 2 feet and making my own decisions instead of relying on the welfare and sympathy of others.

The lessons I've learned along the way have been harsh but I survived them without needing to curl into a little ball and cry like most liberals.

You would do well to wipe your tears and start on the same path.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

I have spent a lifetime standing on my own 2 feet and making my own decisions instead of relying on the welfare and sympathy of others.

The lessons I've learned along the way have been harsh but I survived them without needing to curl into a little ball and cry like most liberals.

You would do well to wipe your tears and start on the same path.

No, thank you.
You obviously don't understand what a community of solidarity is. Ideally, insurance is exactly that. In civilisation, insurance companies are strictly regulated by law to provide exactly that.
It's nice that you're standing on your own two feet. Let's see how well you do when some drunken arsehole knocks you down at the next junction and then commits a hit and run. Nobody there to sue.
Too bad you're stuck with the 1.5 million in hospital costs, and that doesn't include the rehab you need for your shattered knees.
It's a shame that you're not a member of a solidarity community made up of so many people that it only costs a few dollars each to help you. An amount that everyone is happy to pay because they know they will be helped, in case they need it.