Jump to content
@John, the definition of the term “effective” will vary with individual perception where politics are concerned. I can neither confirm nor deny what you state about the “blue dog”, as I was not present to witness these events. Know the intent of my previous post was not to bash our president or any political party.I was merely pointing out that we do have a voice and we can make a difference, even after votes are cast. As far as what I would suggest, first know that I am no subject matter expert in this field. However, I have worked for the private sector and know something of business. I’m in transition of a career change geared towards public service. In short, I will state that I am an individual pursuing an education in the health care sector and political science is a focus of my current studies. Therefore, I will offer a broad suggestion: Research this issue, understand the strategy behind it & be civically engaged. In addition, understand that officials can be contacted, as well as interest groups or other organizations that have dealt with, or are also concerned over, similar issues. Know that when contacting officials, it may be wise to ensure an assertive tone is maintained throughout the communication; while having the understanding that as constituents we have a right to voice our concerns. Also learn of opposing viewpoints and the reasoning behind them. More specifically, I suggest learning of the EMTALA, the new health care bill and of Georgia’s current stance on this.
I think it is morally wrong to deny health care to those who are in urgent need of it whether they can afford it or not. Is this always a wise business decision? No, perhaps not in the short term. In the long term, yes it could be a wise business decision to treat individuals that cannot afford treatment; based on factors such as a healthy community, so on and so forth. I think there are enough individuals that would agree with the moral aspect of this. (Enough individuals that would and could have an impact on a for profit business.)I will restate this: I’m concerned over the matter of “who and by what standards” the “emergency”/”urgent” care is determined. I think this is significant question that needs to be investigated. In one breath, one can summarize what is asserted here. If an individual enters the emergency room and considers themselves in need of urgent care, the individual will be asked to pay 150.00 up front. If it is determined that they are not in need of emergency care, but can pay and wants to be seen by emergency health care providers, then the ER will see them. Yet, if an individual cannot pay and it has been determined that they are not in need of emergency care, regardless of whether the individual may feel they are undergoing an emergency, the hospital will turn them away. There are too many variables in terms of emergency situations, to operate like this. We can take something such as the “gauging pain”, as one premise to argue this point.
“Expensive”/“you get what you vote for”? Please tell me when the WE was omitted from DEMOCRACY. WE must remember that EACH of us has a voice. When those voices are combined WE CAN make a difference, even after the votes are cast. Let us not forget, that WE have a system of checks and balances.Let us also remember that our president is not the only one in office.There are 535 others that WE CAN communicate with. This doesn't include the number of other officials that WE CAN express our concerns to. Also, please see the comments from a healthcare provider in the following article.
@Newtonqq, I think you state some valid points that need further consideration. My concerns are along the same lines. I will also pose this question to the public: who and by what standards of evaluation determine if the patient is experiencing an emergency?
'Medical-insurance companies, such as BCBS, could start charging more for your ER visit if you go there for something that doesn't qualify as an emergency. That is worrying some doctors."What people define as an emergency is really independent of each person," said Dr. Nick Vasquez, who has worked in the ER at St. Joseph's Hospital for 8 years."For some people it's 'Oh, my headache is so bad,' for others it's 'The tumor has become so big I can't hide it anymore.' Vasquez said insurance companies are putting too much credibility in a patient's final diagnosis and not in the patient's symptoms. According to him, an ER works as a one-stop shop that takes care of everything from life-and-death medical treatment to prescription refills. Vasquez is the first to admit that not all of his patients' ailments are emergencies, but that doesn't mean they aren't urgent. Many of the patients come in because they can't get an appointment with the doctor provided by their insurance. "We have a shortage of doctors in Arizona, and there is no way any of my patients will be seen in a short amount of time," said Vasquez. "Call your primary doctor if you have one. Ask what's the soonest they can see you, and think about that if you got a cold, or you have chest pains, or you feel weak in your right arm. If you wanted to see your primary doctor, would you wait 3 weeks? "Vasquez said that almost every one of his patients is insured. Even if the treatment isn't an emergency, he thinks the ER serves a purpose in making sure people can at least receive fast treatment they wouldn't otherwise receive in a timely manner. "People don't want lectures, they want help," he said. "And if they can't get it from their clinic, they can get it from us. I just hope we can continue to deliver a valuable service like that." According to numbers from the American College of Emergency Physicians, 7 out of 10 Americans oppose health-plan efforts to deny payments for ER visits, and E.R. care is just 2 percent of the total health-care costs in the U.S. The CDC reports that only 8% of ER visits are for non-urgent medical conditions.
Last login: Tuesday, November 13, 2012