To all the folks who are against the ACA, do you believe that an uninsured person should be denied health care at a hospital?
who would say yes to this?
No, but they never were prior to Obamacare. I don't understand your question.
Some hospitals legally can
I don't have health insurance. I pay cash if I need a dr. No one else is going to be on the hook for my medical bills. Why should I be denied care when I hand over my debit card to pay??
There won't be any healthCARE. ACA is an insurance portal designed to sell us ALL a tax for rationing for all. Ladies and gentlemen - We got the red pill, death panels, and deductibles so high that people cannot afford the care - just the premium.
Economics is THE REASON for the ACA. Those exorbitant costs get passed on to everyone else, jacking up out healthcare costs.
So unless you want people dying in the streets like a Dostoevsky novel by denying coverage....
Economics? That's laughable.
Why? You like paying for other people's deferred medical problems? Especially when the expense is so much higher because they delayed care until it was a crisis?
What do you think the justification is?
Suppressed ... but the real question is ... why are we paying for deferred health care? Why aren't the deadbeats paying for their own healthcare?
Ask Reagan, he signed that bill. I assumed that MUST make it anointed by God.
And they're not paying because healthcare has gotten so unbelievably expensive. ACA just uses natural market forces to bring the costs down.
...unless you'd prefer direct legislation of an industry, and you know how that works out.
You've figured out how to make people without money pay for their own health care? Remarkable.
No one is refused medical attention in this country. Even illegal immigrants are tended to, when hospitals know full well that they won't be paid.
They get treated in this country. Should be 100 % to zip.
Dave ... the poor wording of the question will pollute the results. Should every person receive real emergency care, regardless of insurance? Yes.
Should illegal aliens and persons without insurance receive non-emergency care ... No way!
Go away. Don't knock my question because of another conversation in another poll. Goodbye.
Sounds like someone needs a hug!
Sounds like you need to change one letter in your name. N to C.
It's ok, Davey. Just relax, and you'll make it through this thought spot.
Nobody calls me Davey. Nobody. It's against the law. It will become the 28th amendment. I'm not angry not do I need to chill. I got the impression from our conversation about abortion & the death penalty that you think I'm simple minded or confused.
And they weren't before the ACA
Nobody is denied healthcare at a hospital.
You mean at an emergency room ... plenty of people are denied healthcare, and so they should.
At a hospital... That's what I said.
The emergency room ... of the hospital ... is the only place where deadbeats are served by law.
Yes, at the hospital. Are you having trouble reading this morning?
Cowboy ... there are actually MANY departments in most hospitals, the Emergency Department is typically just one of them. Deadbeats get free care in the Emergency Department, but not in the other departments of the hospital.
Its still part of the hospital, right? Are you just arguing, to argue, here?
Cowboy ... take a breath! I think we are in violent agreement about the ED, but your comment was a bit sloppy, and I was only trying to clarify.
Yes, deadbeats will continue to get care in the ED, but not the rest of the hospital.
What part of, nobody is denied healthcare, at a hospital, needs to clarified? I don't get it.
The question should be do you think government should involved in healthcare. No.
they never are. Dr are required to help all people. (Hypocratic Oath)
You really should check the facts ... ask the Mayo Clinic in Arizona about their acceptance of government health care. Their answer will be HELL NO because the government only pays $0.65 on the dollar for services provided.
Life saving care only.
Where were the tea party when liberal extremist Ronald Reagan signed the largest healthcare mandate in history requiring all hospitals to accept anyone in ER?
That is not accurate (OBRA 89)
Abo ... keep the lie alive!
any fact that you didn't agree with is a lie. That's why Romney is president & Obamacare has been repealed. And idk what that guy above you is saying but Here's a link;
The lie is that O'care is anything like the changes in history.
And in yet another attempt to obfuscate and redirect the discussion you shift left rather than addressing the question at hand.
I was talking mandates; which isn't new for healthcare. Reagan mandated hospitals to take losers while taxpayers paid the hospital bill when they didn't pay. This was the GOP plan last year when discussing repealing ACA; just tell them to go to ER
Some weren't even born yet, others weren't old enough to be involved in politics... You're talking about a multi generational gap between many adults then and now.
Rosebud, all we from conservatives is how Reagan is Jesus & how Obama is a communist, I'm highlighting a time when even "real" conservatives enacted policies that could be called communist now. Reagan is a reminder how extreme conservatives have gone
They never were.
In some cases they are. It's rare, but unfortunately it does happen.
No, but if they go to the ER for a sniffle or hemorrhoids, they should be charged triple.
Not if they can pay cash or have a charity fund their care. Should the hospital and doctors be forced to pay for their care simply because they do not have insurance?
So, if they're unable to pay or find charitable care then let them die. That's what you're saying right?
No, we should use force to make the doctors operate for 10 hours for free, use extremely valuable resources that others can pay for, and force the hospital to pay for their care instead. Multiply that by millions of people. That's your solution?
No, that's not my solution, nor is it the solution in any of the other countries with universal healthcare.
There is evidence that humans cared for the sick and elderly in prehistory. Fossilized remains of elderly people have been found with no teeth, suggesting that someone chewed food then fed them.
To care for our sick and vulnerable is part of human nature, but sadly not for everyone it seems.
You would prefer the sick to die because it might otherwise cost you something. Personally I find that repellent.
Hospitals and doctors don't treat people for free… the charges for those who pay are inflated to compensate for the losses!
What is repulsive is that you want to force people to take care of the sick. I would simply rather have people take care of themselves (weird concept I know) or be cared for voluntarily. We are the most generous nation in the world. Force should never be an option.
That's either willful misinterpretation of what I said, or you're a blinkered fool. My local GP in the UK certainly didn't work for free, they're well paid.
If you're not aware of how universal healthcare can work I suggest you educate yourself.
That's what Medicaid and Medicare is for next person who what's to make obamacare a good thing? Please stand up...
Of course not. Just like how if I go to a dentist I wouldn't get denied because I don't have dental insurance, they just want my money. Why must you have health insurance to go to a hospital? Some people can actually pay in cash...
Now, working in a hospital, most of the "should" scenarios is how it works. Uninsured people are charged real costs & sent to collections when they can't pay. When $20 is a stretch to pay for an extra med, paying off a $30k bill is a little hard too.
They give fake names and addresses. So collections don't work.
You're right. It's because "they" are ALL scoundrels & thieves.
Do you work in a hospital? Because I've worked in a hospital for more than 7 years and have now sold equipment to them for over 12 yrs. I've had these specific conversations with ED Directors and C-level Administrators. I'm not giving you a theory.
As my original comment says, I do work in a hospital, also for about 7 years. I'm a social worker & my bread & butter is the poor & uninsured.
This is why I find all the outrage over ACA absurd.
The problem is that the memorable people are the ones that give Mickey Mouse as a name, even if that is 1 in a hundred people. I have those too, but keep records & know they aren't the norm.
Poor and uninsured cane treated in a hospital for emergencies. For regular treatment and prevention there are free clinics and Medicaid.
Kscott, who qualifies for Medicaid varies from state to state . For example in Ohio , only adults with children or are legally disabled or over 65 years old qualify regardless of income. I realize the extension of Medicaid as part of ACA will...
Qualify more people but some states have decided not to extend Medicaid. ( or you have a state legislature that doesn't want it but a Governor that does and goes around the legislature to get it as has happened here in Ohio)
I bet many could pay if they didn't smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol.
Pay more easily that is. Have you ever been in a poor person's home? They're usually addicted to cigarettes and/or alcohol. They also have a cell phone, they're fat, they eat mcdonalds twice a week, and have a copy of Thor on the shelf.
As a social worker who did home visits, I have been to MANY. ^^^^ This guy has no clue what he's talking about.
They're also all liberals and have jars of dead fetuses all around their luxurious abodes. Hard working republican butlers tend to their every need.
The first step in the justification of injustice is to vilify and demand the object of that injustice
Actually, I visit a lot of homes of poor people, but I'm not a state worker. I find your statement unbelievable. On what part exactly do you take exception? Cell phone? McDonald's? Fat?
What did your Christ say about poor people and judgement and compassion? What did he say about malice and accusation?
He didn't say to setup a big, inefficient bureaucracy to take care of the poor. Besides, you're opposed to is mixing religion and government. Shouldn't we keep our Biblical welfare directives out of government?
Forget government. Forget public policy. What did he say? In the context of one fallen human relating to others, what did he say? What did he say about giving to the poor? What did he say about judgement and compassion?
Keep your religion to yourself Veritas. Everyone can interpret the Bible a thousand different ways. The issue now is ER healthcare.
And how does your decidedly un-Christian/Mormon demeaning of poor people relate to ER healthcare. And it's your religion, not mine. And there seems to be a disconnect between your avowal and belief.
Nothing in my religion compels me to support a government welfare program. You can't claim a disconnect because you don't know what I do in my personal life. One clue is the visits to poor homes that I mentioned above. Now back to the issue?
Veritas. You have a perception that Christians are required by their religion to support government welfare. Why do you want Christians forcing their beliefs on others in the voting booth?
It's really hypocritical of you. Libs howl when Christians vote against gay marriage or abortion, but now you're trying to use religion to garner support for state welfare. See any conflict there?
The only conflict here, Okie, is you trying to avoid answering veritas' question.
He's mistaken in thinking that my religion compels me to support state welfare. Why does he want me to insert religion into politics? I thought you libs were against that. You can stall on that point as a debate technique if you want.
....but my own personal interpretation of religion as compared to his isn't the issue. ER healthcare is the issue.
Again, most welfare recipients are fat, addicted, use cell phones, and saw a blockbuster movie more recently than they've worked for an honest wage.
You are the only person who has even mentioned the government or public policy. In fact, I explicitly said I would ignore this things. Instead you continue straw manning me as proposing an argument I explicitly avoided.
Why did your Christ say about those things? And now you've changed your terminology. You've gone from "poor people" to "welfare recipients" to further obfuscate.
You're still trying to make this about religion. You introduced that. My original posts said nothing of it. If you want to discuss religion then create another poll or at least start another thread in this poll.
So, what part is wrong again? Fat? Addicted? Mcdonalds? Lol.
Okie, veritas is asking you that question because your view of poor people and welfare recipients doesn't equate with the morals set by your religion.
That's your judgement, not mine. It doesn't matter because it's not Germaine to the issue of ER healthcare. What does my religion have to do with it?
Because religion tends to heavily influence how you view things.
Very simply, I'm pointing our the incongruity of what you say and what you say you believe. You claim to be a Mormon, you claim to be a follower of Christ, and yet what you say about the poor is in direct contrast with the former. I'm merely asking
you to explain the disconnect. But no. You have to go creating polls behind my back to slander a straw man of that.
You claim to know my religion better than me, apparently. We can discuss religion if you really want to, but don't be so dishonest as to imply that your line of reasoning doesn't relate directly to the healthcare issue as you're alleging in my poll.
I'll tell you again: there is nothing in my religion that says I should support a "GOVERNMENT" program. Please cite a credible source showing otherwise if you don't believe it.
This is just sad, Okie. You are the only one talking about government. I know it's hard to defend your deeply flawed reasoning, but don't drag this out. Accept that you are the only one talking about welfare, & there is no basis for our lies/slander.
You should read the poll question again. It's directed at people who don't support the ACA. The ACA is law and it's gave rise to a government program. I was answering the poll question. How about you start a poll about religion?
Did you read the poll question again, yet?
You do see where this question asks about the ACA, don't you??????????!!!?!??!??
Hello. Non-Veritas. Why is talking about a government program in a poll about a government program such a bad thing?
I just shared this poll.
I'll second smartfart, as a home healthcare professional I can say you are wrong (maybe it's just an OK thong though). Some poor people eat McDonald's bc that's all they can afford which makes them fat. it's the 21st century, most people in 1st world countries have cell phones.
Addiction had no socioeconomic borders. And who gives a damn about thor?
Just to add an example to Okie's cluelessness & incorrect world view, not all social workers are state workers. Very few actually. Though the agency I worked for received some state funding, it was a private agency. I have never been a state employee
Eating at McDonalds is usually more expensive than making a meal at home. If you can afford Entertainment then you don't need my money via the federal government. Don't tell lies now. I've been in those homes and continue to see them regularly.
Okie, I reread the question. It does not "ask about ACA." It mentions ACA in passing.
The actual question is, "Do you believe an uninsured person should be denied health care at a hospital?" It's about what a hospital should do, not the government.
It's not unreasonable to discuss the ACA in this poll. My thread was doing that. Be reasonable grandma.
And the question's clear implication is that without the ACA people would be denied healthcare. It wasn't mentioned in passing. The poll was targeted specifically at those who DON't support the ACA.
Headed to bed now. G'night.
Just have to jump in... McD is a hella lot more expensive. I can make a decent meal for my family- 2 active young adults and a 2 year old who eats like an adult- for the cost of just a "happy" meal. Easily.
Grandma ... let me get this straight ... you are differentiating O'care from the government? Really!?
MrO's signature failure is ALL ABOUT taking away our liberty and forcing citizens to pay for a service under the threat of GOVERNMENT sanction.
Veritas ... it's really great that you are FINALLY ready for the Sunday School lesson!
Let's start with the Parable of the Talents. What lesson do you think Jesus intended with this Parable?
@Think, nothing in my comment says or implies that Obamacare is separate from the government. Read my words again. I said that DAVE'S QUESTION does not ask our opinion about Obamacare. I agree, the question could have been expressed more clearly.
I believe that people should pay for what they consume! I see people all the time sucking the coffers dry, but have the latest greatest phone, shoes, car, etc. They'd rather have US pay for their critical needs. I'm over it!
That's because health costs are sudden and they would need to save money to pay for it whereas drugs and alcohol are immediate fixes.
Same with phones, cars, etc.
kscott ... health care costs are as sudden as a new home purchase. The key is that too many people spend all that they make, and don't save anything for tomorrow. So, when health issues arise, they are unprepared. Why is that our responsibility?
Think, I was saying that they don't save for health care but instead spend every dime they make as soon as they get it on things they don't necessarily need.
kscott ... Ah, I absolutely agree!
I'm not necessarily for the ACA, but I do believe some form of health insurance, or even better, universal healthcare, should be required to prevent having to ask or answer this question, among others.
No. I believe a payment plan, based on *actual* costs, not insurance-inflated costs, should set up for people w/no insurance. Like in "olden days" (circa 1990 & before). There is no practical way to address these issues in sets of 250 characters.
Insurance - pre-PP&ACA insurance - has been been one of several factors driving healthcare costs up. PP&ACA will NOT solve problem; it doubles down on most root problems, correcting *no* prior problems. Costs HAVE to go up, quality of care down.
Function follows form. As designed PP&ACA can only make bad problem worse. There are problems to correct. PP&ACA corrects none of those problems.
Of course it will be worse! Those of us who were responsible before, and lived below our income, and purchased insurance now have to pay for the lazy and those who will not plan for their own needs.
There is no "should." There is not necessarily a "denial," either, based on the information given.
I know it's beating a dead horse, but those of us against the ACA are against THIS DAMNED BILL, not against sick people, or health care! I accept that most libs are just incapable of viewing us fairly or accurately.
If they don't have the means to pay for it, why would the hospital give them free serivce? So yes.
So let them die?
Haha, Z - obviously not. There any thousands of charities that will these individuals.
That's just pure guessing. Nobody is stopping charities now, and I fail to see why people are so sure they would step up to the plate.
Charities would have more money to give if we didn't live in such an anti-business, leftist environment. But, in the end, hospitals should not be forced to provide service to someone who is unwilling/unable to pay.
Oh right. When you're having a heart attack, you can just go to your local library, find a local healthcare charity, submit an application, wait it out, and you'll be fine! Free maker woo!
V: If the government left the healthcare business, charities would quickly adapt and innovate to meet the needs of the people they're helping. Ideally, a charity would be lined up for the person before a health problem arises.
Hospitals cannot deny services for emergencies regardless of ability to pay so this question is moot
@Cole. You can't just say, "oh well, all the logical problems with my position will magically disappear if you accept my position." That's just intellectual laziness and just not true.
@k This is a question about whether it should.
"charities would quickly adapt and innovate to meet the needs of the people they're helping"
I still fail to see how you can treat that as some sort of fact.
My reply still stands then. No hospitals should not be treated as doctor's offices. We have free clinics for just that reason. Do you even realize the variety of free health services at the free clinic?
I'm not treating it as a fact - you're right, I do not know exactly how the system I propose would function. But, I nonetheless support the right of hospitals to refuse service to those who cannot pay. If I don't have $75k to spare on a new Beamer...
should BMW just give me the car for free? Of course not, that is completely absurd.
You don't die if you don't get a spare within five minutes. How you're missing the fact that if the service is not IMMEDIATELY rendered, you DIE. Right there. Right then. This isn't a car repair. It's human life.
@k. Please tell me not about this free, vast and extensive system of free emergency car and ambulatory clinics across the nation that obviously exists.
There's a difference between getting a car and not dying from something that's treatable.
V: "It's human life" Really? I have no desire to have a debate on morality with you, as we obviously have completely different value systems.
This isn't a debate about morality. It's about whether valuing the marginal short term profits of a multinational conglomerate more than a human life is a societally successful course of action. It self-evidently isn't. That's just pure common sense.
Veritas, uninsured have been able to go to a hospital for emergencies for decades. It isn't new. For non-emergencies there are free clinics. Maybe in a small rural town there might not be but they can pay cash for services.
But Veritas, don't you know?!? The point of hospitals isn't to help people or to save lives, that just stupid! It's all about making bucks. Seriously, the naïveté of some libertarians is just too much.
And hospitals don't make a profit on the uninsured.
Do either of you work in a hospital? Because you don't know how they function.
K. Once again, the question is whether they should. Cole says no. The debate is over that. Is vs ought.
And actually yes, I worked in an ER this summer.
I'll repeat. Yes they should be denied health care at a hospital other than for an emergency. Hospitals are not doctor's offices.
What capacity did you work in?
I'm appalled that my insurance rates will continue to go up, along with my deductible - while uninsured get a choice of lower rates and lower deductible-I feel punished for having a job that offers health insurance. Why can't I have to sane choices?
The hospital should treat them as cash customers and charge them. If they don't pay, the hospital should go after them.
What if they don't have the money?
That is the hospitals problem.
So the hospital can deny them treatment if they don't have the money?
My comment was to clarify that I don't think they should get free healthcare. I voted no.
Hospitals cannot deny treatment prior to ACA for emergencies.
No, but it shouldn't be free either. Just because they don't have insurance doesn't mean they can't pay. Make them make payments.
They will try to collect but typically sell off the debt to a third party
Reagan actually was the one who did this.
And what most people don't realize is that this is a huge part of the obscene cost of healthcare in this country. ER treatment isn't cheap.
That's not the driver of costs but while on the topic of ERs, part of it is because the uninsured and drug users go there for doctor's visits.
A few years ago, I had a MRSA abscess in my leg & it had been misdiagnosed by two doctors. The pain became so intense on a holiday weekend that I ended up in the ER. Anyway, the packing & dressing needed to be checked & such by medical professionals
on a regular basis & the ER doctor & nurse actually suggested that I return to the ER for this basic care, instead of a family doctor. I asked if my dr. could do it & he said they could. I had insurance at the time. I do think ER staff encouraging
an unnecessary return ER visit was bad policy. I went to my family doctor instead.
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act practically ensures that if you go to an emergency room they have to at the least stabilize your condition and cannot transfer or discharge you without your consent
Only 3 groups can refuse emergency care. Indian health care facilities the VA and the Shriners(children's hospital)
And those three can only refuse you because they are privately owned and operated, VA is mostly for veterans only, and Shriners because there are four other hospitals within two city blocks, including UC Med Center and Cincinnati Children's.
I'm just wondering if there's a conflict to some people. They may not like the ACA, but I personally can't see turning someone away from care.
Even the hospitals that legally can dont normally. Unfortunately, certain hospitals can if they chose to
Only for-profits can if its not an emergency
I'm for it, but no. And yes some hospitals are actually exempted from having to take in uninsured people.