Now what are you talking about?my point exactly.
Seekerz as I said before, insurance does not equate medical care. You can have a gold plated insurance card but itâs not going to help you get well.
Lisa
Hi Juliane. Iâd like to direct you to page 26. Of the link below.
Weird huh.
I can also attest to this. I have worked with the management (read: the people who care about the financial implications of serving the poor) of several Catholic hospitals (read: not-for-profit), and I have NEVER seen any hint of an attitude toward the poor. Looking at their patient mix year-over-year, the poor in these hospitalsâ areas are very well-served.
Thatâs interesting, but people without insurance also get care. Now, they generally canât pay for it, but they still get care.
Emergency rooms are meant for emergency care, not routine health care. There is no follow-up, which is what most people with significant health conditions need. More importantly, there are no routine preventive checks, so some health conditions are not even discovered until they cause complicationsâŚso yes, some poor people are going without health care, but thanks for sharing your expertise anyway.
They may be seen in an emergency department. But, thats not what we in the 21st century consider appropriate medical care. Anywhere else, no cards, no care.
Grab the next uninsured person you encounter and ask them if they get follow-up, non-emergency tests or medications from the ER. No they donât. Health care involves all of the above.
Youâre right, meanwhile we subsidize basic (non-emergency, ongoing, prevention-included) health care - including free childhood immunization - for a myriad of Third World countries. How about the needy right here?
BoloneyâŚmedical care certainly does exist without insurance. And even those with insurance still have to come up with the money to cover the deductibles and uncovered expenses. No insurance covers 100% of care.Now what are you talking about?
Medical care for most, does not exist with out healthcare insurance.
ATB
Newsflash: health care that BEGINS in a hospital is a symptom of social neglect. Standard, modern health care for most human beings begins with routine visits to a regular provider.I can also attest to this. I have worked with the management (read: the people who care about the financial implications of serving the poor) of several Catholic hospitals (read: not-for-profit), and I have NEVER seen any hint of an attitude toward the poor. Looking at their patient mix year-over-year, the poor in these hospitalsâ areas are very well-served.
Anyway, to the point of the thread, after reading a synopsis of the opinion, I agree with it for the following reasons:
Now, having said all that, the fact that the NY Times had on the front page the other day, âRomney says individual mandate is a tax under criticism from other Republicansâ rather than âRomney agrees with the Supreme Court that the individual mandate is a taxâ gives me a clue as to how this will be spun in the media.
- The opinion stomps out the idea that the commerce clause can be used to punish refraining from entering into a class of transactions
- Congress DOES have the power to tax, and it is a broad power indeed. Because of #1, the debate over the individual mandate is reframed (among honest people, anyway) with the understanding that the mandate involves a tax. So the argument SHOULD be âis this tax a good idea?â
- As Roberts said, it is NOT the Courtâs job to protect the electorate from the consequences of their electoral decisions. This, I think, was the most important. One can only hope that from here on out (or at least for another election cycle), people will pay closer attention to who they are voting for.
Newsflash: There are revenue streams at every hospital I have worked with that include regular clinical care. Even the clinic components have self-pay and Medicaid care provided below cost.
And I donât know about the âmost human beingsâ part. I know plenty of insured people (read: 99% of the people that I work with) who neglect routine visits. And I donât even think I would call it âneglectâ per se since most of them are pretty healthy.
So SOME people are going without health care. So billions of dollars that we donât have are going to be wasted so these SOME people can get some kind of health care.
You defined poor by what I assume is a personal standard. To my knowledge, poverty is defined by people living below something called a âpoverty lineâ.Actually, I started in on defining what âpoorâ people have so we could form a baseline from which could ascertain why a âpoorâ person couldnât afford $60/ healthcare.
A figure you ignored and spun into how it doesnât include outpatient visits.
Indeed. And as I pointed out earlier, many insured people are going without care as well. Humans in general arenât the best long-term planners, which results in greater costs when they DO seek care, both for the taxpayers and the insurance companies, who then turn around and raise costs for everyone paying premiums.So SOME people are going without health care. So billions of dollars that we donât have are going to be wasted so these SOME people can get some kind of health care.
Billions of your dollars and mine are already being âwastedâ (your words) in keeping such people alive - we could simply be spending smarter by catching illness before it requires $100,000 treatments.So SOME people are going without health care. So billions of dollars that we donât have are going to be wasted so these SOME people can get some kind of health care.
Yeah, I watch my own bills and wonder how much âlong-termâ planning can be done by a person who canât afford regular care. For people who are so concerned with economics and spending, the economic effect of an unhealthy workforce doesnât ever seem to enter the conversation or perhaps it is though that the poor donât work anywayâŚ? Strange I hardly ever seem to meet unemployed poor - maybe itâs just the company I keep.