This happened in America?

[BuckNaked]

I just wonder how far the *you get what you pay for* thing goes.. Do people who have no insurnce get what they paid for...nothing..I'm not talking about life support here,but the idea that if you have no medical insurence you get NO treatment.. I assume that's *not * what you mean.. Not everyonne without insurance is poor either.. Othen people with AIDS can't even get insurance

Speaking *only* for myself, I think that people without insurance should get as much care as they can either pay for or have provided to them by the hospital, charities or local governments, if those governments choose to provide such care.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I never commented on this case,because I don't feel informed enough about these issues to comment on a specific case,plus I feel like many posters with medical experience brought up some good points
I just wonder how far the *you get what you pay for* thing goes.. Do people who have no insurance get what they paid for...nothing..I'm not talking about life support here,but the idea that if you have no medical insurance you get NO treatment.. I assume that's *not * what you mean.. Not everyone without insurance is poor either.. Often people with AIDS can't even get insurance

I agree with the other poster who said that healthcare, at least in America, is a commodity. To that end, one gets what one can afford. Fortunately, there are some safety nets in place for those who have no insurance for whatever reason. And I've been there myself... more than once, so I know what it's like when you can't afford to see the doctor.

Ideally, we would provide universal healthcare to every U.S. citizen, regardless of their ability to pay. However, I doubt that our economy would long survive the costs of such an ideal.

Compassion is wonderful to talk about, but when one begins discussing compassion in terms of healthcare, it needs to be balanced with the reality that the "compassionate healthcare" ultimately has to be paid for by someone. When I consider that, I have to say that, sadly, there has to be a limit on compassion, otherwise, we're looking at bankrupting our country and I'm not prepared to accept that as a reasonable consequence.

 

[CapeCodTenor]

I agree with the other poster who said that healthcare, at least in America, is a commodity. To that end, one gets what one can afford. Fortunately, there are some safety nets in place for those who have no insurance for whatever reason. And I've been there myself... more than once, so I know what it's like when you can't afford to see the doctor.

Ideally, we would provide universal healthcare to every U.S. citizen, regardless of their ability to pay. However, I doubt that our economy would long survive the costs of such an ideal.

Compassion is wonderful to talk about, but when one begins discussing compassion in terms of healthcare, it needs to be balanced with the reality that the "compassionate healthcare" ultimately has to be paid for by someone. When I consider that, I have to say that, sadly, there has to be a limit on compassion, otherwise, we're looking at bankrupting our country and I'm not prepared to accept that as a reasonable consequence.

Thank you for posting this. I could not have said it any better.

 

[Ali and boyz]

everybody moans here in the UK about the NHS but at least we wouldn't have to go through all what you guys do re Insurance and not getting proper treatment because of the insurance etc.

 

[DawnCt1]

everybody moans here in the UK about the NHS but at least we wouldn't have to go through all what you guys do re Insurance and not getting proper treatment because of the insurance etc.

Regardless of what you may hear, no one goes without proper treatment because they don't have insurance. Anyone sick or injured who shows up in an emergency room always receives appropriate treatment regardless of their ability to pay.

 

[Galahad]

Regardless of what you may hear, no one goes without proper treatment because they don't have insurance. Anyone sick or injured who shows up in an emergency room always receives appropriate treatment regardless of their ability to pay.

She's right about this Ali and boyz. While it does happen sometimes, most often patients are indeed treated the same whether they can pay or not. It all get sorted out, shifted around and such, but there aren't legions of people with no healthcare. It may be that some don't seek treatment because they don't have "coverage" but if they did seek treatment, they would be able to get it in most cases.

 

[Tiggernut_jadie]

....Unless they're terminally ill and then they're given 10 days 'grace before someone pull the plug!!!!!!

 

[BuckNaked]

....Unless they're terminally ill and then they're given 10 days 'grace before someone pull the plug!!!!!!

What kind of treatment do you expect them to give to a terminally ill patient? Not like it's treatable.

 

[Ali and boyz]

Regardless of what you may hear, no one goes without proper treatment because they don't have insurance. Anyone sick or injured who shows up in an emergency room always receives appropriate treatment regardless of their ability to pay.

Thats good. hope I didn't offend anyone. I was just worried for you guys if you were sick and had no insurance.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Thats good. hope I didn't offend anyone. I was just worried for you guys if you were sick and had no insurance.

The concern is well founded, because as another poster said there are many who do not seek healthcare because they have neither money nor insurance, not knowing they could still get treatment at practically any ER. Fortunately, when I was without insurance, I knew that, in a real emergency, I could go to the ER. Thankfully, in those instances, emergencies managed to avoid me or I them. Either way, I was probably just lucky. There are too many people in the U.S. who are not.

 

[catherine]

Regardless of what you may hear, no one goes without proper treatment because they don't have insurance. Anyone sick or injured who shows up in an emergency room always receives appropriate treatment regardless of their ability to pay.

Surely this approach pushes up the costs of medical treatment. I know that many people only go to the ER when they are critically ill. I think that it's very unlikely that someone is going to go and sit in the ER for 10 plus hours to get a prescription for antibiotics that they wouldn't be able to afford to pay for anyway.

Last year I took care of a US citizen who was taken critically ill while he was visiting the UK. He was very appreciative of the fact that he was nursed here under the NHS and he didn't have to pay a penny!

 

[DawnCt1]

Surely this approach pushes up the costs of medical treatment. I know that many people only go to the ER when they are critically ill. I think that it's very unlikely that someone is going to go and sit in the ER for 10 plus hours to get a prescription for antibiotics that they wouldn't be able to afford to pay for anyway.

Last year I took care of a US citizen who was taken critically ill while he was visiting the UK. He was very appreciative of the fact that he was nursed here under the NHS and he didn't have to pay a penny!

It does drive up the cost of health care for everyone because the hospitals have to absorb the costs and spread it out to the rest of the paying public. That said, your system, of taking care of US citizens while they are visiting, also has to drive up your costs and your taxes. Someone ends up paying. That's a fact, it just may not be that particular American visitor. And yes, people do abuse and use the ER for minor complaints as well as major emergencies. That won't change. That isn't just the group that can't afford to pay but those who don't plan ahead and decide that at 10 pm that sore throat that they have had all day should be "looked at". That's another BIG problem.

 

[Puffy2]

And yes, people do abuse and use the ER for minor complaints as well as major emergencies. That won't change. That isn't just the group that can't afford to pay but those who don't plan ahead and decide that at 10 pm that sore throat that they have had all day should be "looked at". That's another BIG problem.

One that is fueled by an inefficent healthcare system in the US where people who have insurance, can pay, but can't get an appointment to see their physicans for weeks out. That is common occurance in large cities and it's BS - no wonder they go to the ER and end up paying 5 times the amount and take all day just so they can be seen and treated in a reasonable time frame of a day or two instead of 3 months.

 

[PrincessKitty1]

My question is, what doctor made the decision to intubate this young woman in the first place?? I can't imagine anybody trying to prolong the life of someone who was already so close to death.

I know for a fact that numerous medical decisions are based on a patient's ability or inability to pay. However, whether this patient had insurance or not, intubation is NOT palliative care for cancer. It is an aggressive action to save a life. So if she was about to die, why did they intubate her in the first place?? Just wondering.

BTW, it is a false statement to say that "no one goes without proper care because they don't have insurance." Emergency rooms can and do turn people away without insurance if their conditions are not emergencies. Plus, many people cannot afford to pay for the medications that would keep them well, so they do indeed go without proper care. Finally, emergency rooms can provide great care for emergencies but they do not provide good care for chronic conditions.

When I worked in the admissions department of a local hospital, surgeries classified as "emergent" had to performed whether the patient had insurance or not. So a "financial counselor" would call the physician, explain the patient did not have insurance, and the physician would then downgrade the surgery to "urgent."

The "financial counselor" would then call the patient and tell them the surgery would not be performed unless they came with cash upfront. So yes, people are denied proper care frequently, based on lack of insurance. That's just one example, I could come up with dozens more (having worked in health care for decades!).

 

[catherine]

One that is fueled by an inefficent healthcare system in the US where people who have insurance, can pay, but can't get an appointment to see their physicans for weeks out. That is common occurance in large cities and it's BS - no wonder they go to the ER and end up paying 5 times the amount and take all day just so they can be seen and treated in a reasonable time frame of a day or two instead of 3 months.

I can't believe that you are all paying that amount of money for your health coverage and you have to wait weeks to see a doctor. Is this a common occurence? I get upset if I have to wait a couple of days to see my GP!

 

[Puffy2]

I can't believe that you are all paying that amount of money for your health coverage and you have to wait weeks to see a doctor. Is this a common occurence? I get upset if I have to wait a couple of days to see my GP!

Yes, it's common occurance with the decent doctors with good reputations. My husband had a lump in his neck - the docs office said they could see him in 5 months (gee, thanks, he could be dead by then).
Had a skin complication and couldn't get in to see our regular dermatologist for two months - couldn't wait that long, saw a doc-in the-box THREE TIMES - misdiagnoised and condition persisted. When we finally got in to see the dermatologist, she said the patient had been misdiagnoised. Well, great, if we could have seen her first, none of this would have happened.

The thing is, it's a larger situation than most of us realize - in the US there are plenty of qualifiied people who want to attend medical school but our system keeps the supply of physicans low on purpose - few medical schools, huge tuition. It's just a sad situation fueled by greed.

 

[Chuck S]

Yes, it's common occurance with the decent doctors with good reputations. My husband had a lump in his neck - the docs office said they could see him in 5 months (gee, thanks, he could be dead by then).
Had a skin complication and couldn't get in to see our regular dermatologist for two months - couldn't wait that long, saw a doc-in the-box THREE TIMES - misdiagnoised and condition persisted. When we finally got in to see the dermatologist, she said the patient had been misdiagnoised. Well, great, if we could have seen her first, none of this would have happened.

The thing is, it's a larger situation than most of us realize - in the US there are plenty of qualifiied people who want to attend medical school but our system keeps the supply of physicans low on purpose - few medical schools, huge tuition. It's just a sad situation fueled by greed.

Ditto the experience. We hear so much about skin cancers, when I noticed a strange and growing red spot, I thought perhaps it was a fungal infection and tried to treat it with OTC ointments...no effect, so then I called the dermatologist...two month wait, so I called my Mother's internist, who saw me in a week and misdiagnosed it as a bacterial infection and gave me antibiotic cream...which of course didn't work. Two weeks later, I went back to the internist who referred me to the SAME derm and "amazingly" got me in right away because it was a referral. Turns out is wasn't a serious conditon , but 10 minutes in the derms office in the first place could have 1) saved $$, both for the interist and ineffective prescription 2) gotten me relief much faster, as the spot spread considerably in that time 3) not put the the stress and worry on me about it possibly being serious, as skin cancer does occur on my fathers side of the family. And for those who would suggest trying a different derm, there is only one in town.

 

[DawnCt1]

I can't believe that you are all paying that amount of money for your health coverage and you have to wait weeks to see a doctor. Is this a common occurence? I get upset if I have to wait a couple of days to see my GP!

I nor my children have ever had to wait "weeks" go see a doctor. I suppose that in some underserved areas, that could be the case. On the other hand, walk in centers are available in most areas.

 

[sha_lyn]

I just wonder how far the *you get what you pay for* thing goes.. Do people who have no insurnce get what they paid for...nothing..I'm not talking about life support here,but the idea that if you have no medical insurence you get NO treatment.. I assume that's *not * what you mean.. Not everyonne without insurance is poor either.. Othen people with AIDS can't even get insurance

My comment was made in reguards of this case. However it appears it had nothing to do with insurance and had everything to do with a Dr incubating a terminally ill patient that should not have been incubated in the first place.

I was also asked earlier about the law.... As I said before I can't find anything on the law other than the hype by those attacking GWB. Can't really post a position on a law I haven't read.

 

[DisneyDotty]

This issue is so close to home...
I have been a foster mother to several kids in the past few years. Our most recent foster son came to us with some kind of allergic reaction/skin rash. No medical info available. As the condition worsened, I tried to get him into a doctor in my area (suburbs of Chicago.) NOT ONE doctor (called probably twenty, including so-called "low income clinics") would see him because of his prior condition/being on Medicaid/no appointments available for the next two months... Finally I had no choice but to take him to ER, where they said he has an allergic rash (DUH!) and I should follow up with the pediatrician listed. Went to the ped--he said, yes, the boy has an allergy and really should be evaluated but that this MD wouldn't take anymore Medicaid patients so go find another doctor. This could have potentially been a life-threatening condition--who knows what the poor kid was allergic to--and my only source for medical help was an understaffed ER. And how much did the state have to pay for an ER visit?
Had a similar issue with another foster son who needed surgery, but again, no doctor in my area would see him because of Medicaid. What are working people who can't afford to traipse around looking for medical care for their children supposed to do?
So yes, people without insurance are forced to use the ER because doctors today refuse to see them. And God help us all if we are without insurance and have any kind of chronic health issue.
It is extremely frustrating to have a child with a medical condition not get proper treatment. Those of us who have experienced this know that our country desperately needs to reevaluate our health care/insurance industry.