Posted on 09/22/2007 12:04:38 AM PDT by neverdem
Ummm...I am not sure where you are coming from. I have not said I disagree, nor do I disagree. You said “Medical Centers won’t be happy about this...”
Won’t be happy about what? That they won’t be required to provide care for illegal immigrants except in emergency situations? Perhaps I am misreading the article...
The The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) provides for Emergency treatment for those who need it, something none of us (or at least I hope none of us) would consider denying to someone, the “Leave the accident victim at the side of the road” viewpoint.
However, if a person comes in with no insurance to a hospital, and wants a skin tumor removed, there is no federal requirement to do so.
If someone has no insurance, they can apply for medicaid if they are below a certain income, and if they are above a certain income, they can arrange a payment plan for services rendered.
Additionally, the hospital providing the care can draw from a fund of money provided by the federal government for the purpose of giving aid to uninsured patients, but there is no requirement that they attempt to draw on those funds. Each institution can simply refuse to participate.
But most institutions do, because invariably in the course of things, uninsured patients DO enter into the territory of non-emergent care, and most hospitals do wish to be able to draw on it.
That is not the issue at hand, though. The issue is the definition of non-emergent care as being emergent for the purposes of expanding the pool of eligible people, thus drawing us one step closer to socialized health care.
6.5 billion people on the planet.
Av. income is $10K around the world. So half of world pop. earns at the U.S. Federal poverty line, & qualifies for Federal aid of some sort...
CLOSE THE BORDERS, until these nations increase their OWN productivity — we can’t afford it.
We are only 300 million. We CAN’T AFFORD to SUPPORT six billion people
.
Perhaps I misread the article myself. What I read seemed to indicate that the federal government wasn’t going to pay for services for illegal immigrants any longer. I didn’t see where it said hospitals wouldn’t have to provide service if they showed up at the E.R. That may seem like the same thing, but it’s not.
Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it.
I thought we fought a revolution so we didn’t have to give our money to england. Now its looking like a deal, I’d gladly give King George 2% of my income annually.. if he makes it so I don’t get 50% of my income taken in wealth transfers and ‘entitlements’.
I’ll even look the other way as King George does what he’s gotta do to get rid of the ‘useless eaters’.
Good post.. One thing occured to me reading it as well. If we are going to provide health care for hundreds of millions of third worlders, I sure as hell don’t want to be paying it in our system.
It probably costs 1/20th or less to give health care in most third world nations then in America. When we give medical care here, we have to also pay for monopolists like the ama, the health bureaucrats, insurance company profits, and lawyers like john edwards to be worth tens of millions.
The AMA is a legal cartel. Much of what physicians do can be done cheaply by by nurses, nurse practitioners. The AMA medical “cartel” controls (limits) supply, driving up prices. There is a whole history of protectionism behind the AMA, despite what they say about their organization.
Medical licensure restrictions (protections) are a hot topic among economists — they OPPOSE it, it’s bad for consumers. They want more competition in services, greater supply of different types of services from minor needs (done cheaply in a clinic at Walmart, for example) up to more serious health issues which truly require specialists with more advanced training.
Having AMA’s cartel is great for socialists like Hillary, who can point to the “shortage” and the “high prices, and then call for us to move AWAY from the actual solution - increased competition & a wider array of services & choices - and toward a top-down, anti-competitive, very costly monopoly system (read: government run).
No problem...I just got the impression you thought I disagreed with your opinion, and I absolutely don’t...we are on the same page.
Not all care, just emergency care. The question is whether chemotherapy is considered emergency care or not. If the Federal government says it is not, and the state says yes it is, then it has to be resolved. The Federal government will not provide matching Medicaid funds. If NY State feels so strongly about it, let their taxpayers pay for the entire treatment, not just half. Problem solved.
That’s great. I’m glad.
I agree. Thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.