Tim Pawlenty's health care solution: Repeal EMTALA

So there's a clip from Greta Van Sustren going around online of Tim Pawlenty saying that a good cost control method for health care is to change the law requiring hospital ERs to treat everyone.

That law would be EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act). Just so you guys know, EMTALA mainly does two things:

1. It prevents an ER from refusing to treat you for any reason.
2. It prevents a hospital from dumping your ass on the street when you're in no condition to be out.

In other words, you're uninsured and you come to the hospital with chest pains and numbness. The hospital will either tell you to go **** yourself, get the ambulance to drive you around town for an ER willing to take you, or they'll admit you, put you on morphine and general anasthesia and then dump you in some homeless shelter or ally somewhere.

This comes at a time where some of the tea baggers have talked about standing armed outside ERs guarding against non-citizens and the uninsured with loaded guns.

Thoughts?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
So there's a clip from Greta Van Sustren going around online of Tim Pawlenty saying that a good cost control method for health care is to change the law requiring hospital ERs to treat everyone.

That law would be EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act). Just so you guys know, EMTALA mainly does two things:

1. It prevents an ER from refusing to treat you for any reason.
2. It prevents a hospital from dumping your ass on the street when you're in no condition to be out.

In other words, you're uninsured and you come to the hospital with chest pains and numbness. The hospital will either tell you to go **** yourself, get the ambulance to drive you around town for an ER willing to take you, or they'll admit you, put you on morphine and general anasthesia and then dump you in some homeless shelter or ally somewhere.

This comes at a time where some of the tea baggers have talked about standing armed outside ERs guarding against non-citizens and the uninsured with loaded guns.

Thoughts?

I think the best thing to do is pass Obama health care so we can kill all the undesirable people with death panels before they get to the hospitals.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think the best thing to do is pass Obama health care so we can kill all the undesirable people with death panels before they get to the hospitals.

Yeah, in Europe and Canada death panels and free healthcare kill over 900000000000000 people a day.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Yeah, in Europe and Canada death panels and free healthcare kill over 900000000000000 people a day.

You are being sarcastic.

Europe and Canada need to work on their healthcare because they are not killing the right people.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
In other words, you're uninsured and you come to the hospital with chest pains and numbness. The hospital will either tell you to go **** yourself, get the ambulance to drive you around town for an ER willing to take you, or they'll admit you, put you on morphine and general anasthesia and then dump you in some homeless shelter or ally somewhere.

I thought this was already, if illegally, practiced, with more "high class" hospitals dumping the uninsured on low end, generally more crowded, hospitals?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Europe and Canada need to work on their healthcare because they are not killing the right people.

yes, we do, nothing is perfect and these systems aknowledge the need for constant reform.

so, now that we have done the necessary, reactionary critique of social medicine for no reason or relevance to the thread:

The fact that we're healthier than Americans is astounding when you realize that they spend enough per person each year on health care to buy each and every one of them a slightly used Honda Civic. In 2005 their combined public and private expenditure was US$6,401 per person, while we spent just US$3,326. So how come we're so healthy? Most experts agree it's a combination of three factors: we take better care of ourselves, we take better care of our poor, and we only intervene with medical treatment when necessary.

http://www.macleans.ca/science/health/article.jsp?content=20080625_19351_19351

HAIL, the perfect and never changing monolith of American healcare

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are being sarcastic.

😆

Ya think?

Dude, I was in class. You made me laugh and distract the professor while he was lecturing. How dare you. 😆

Originally posted by inimalist
I thought this was already, if illegally, practiced, with more "high class" hospitals dumping the uninsured on low end, generally more crowded, hospitals?

A couple years back, Kaiser and Anthem got caught in California putting homeless and poor people on light sedatives and saline and then dumping them in shelters and street corners in nothing but a hospital gown in the middle of the night with no medical care at all.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
A couple years back, Kaiser and Anthem got caught in California putting homeless and poor people on light sedatives and saline and then dumping them in shelters and street corners in nothing but a hospital gown in the middle of the night with no medical care at all.

Read about that. I'm no so sure I'm against that.

However, it's sad that I would have to chose to let people go to save more productive citizens. I would prefer it if we could let healthcare professionals do what they want trained to do: save and improve lives.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Read about that. I'm no so sure I'm against that.

However, it's sad that I would have to chose to let people go to save more productive citizens. I would prefer it if we could let healthcare professionals do what they want trained to do: save and improve lives.

Health care would be a lot cheaper if the people weren´t poisoned by the countless crap on offer disguised as edible and drinkable goods.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Health care would be a lot cheaper if the people weren´t poisoned by the countless crap on offer disguised as edible and drinkable goods.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Autogenocide anyone? Being rich doesn't mean you're productive. Quite the opposite in fact if you live in the US considering how many people make their money by moving other peoples' money around while creating nothing of value.

That's not what I was referring to and neither were you.

Not that we disagree completely on what you said above, but what you just did is a strawman. 😄

We were talking about homeless people, not blue-collar working class people.

Also, I think an ER should tell people to GTFO for cuts that need stitches or other type of immediate non-life threatening issues. Go to your PCP or urgent care facility. But, not being able to tell if something is a heart attack or heart burn: sure, admit them.

Right but you still have to find a PCP or urgent care that will take someone that's uninsured and if you get rid of the law, every health care facility in a given city could adopt a policy not to take anyone uninsured who can't pay upfront out of pocket, thus completely eliminating any health care for (at this point) at least a fifth of the population. They could also destroy Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and the VA by deciding not to treat anyone with an insurance plan that pays below market value, thus making any kind of government health care unaffordable and pointless. Something insurance-run hospitals would definitely be willing to do. Then you've got expensive conditions that you lose money on anyway. Better not to even admit or diagnose segments of the population that statistically are at high risk of cancer and heart disease. No chance of accusations of profiling since you don't have to provide any kind of justification for refusing to admit or kicking someone out but that automatically kicks all non-upper class Blacks, Hispanics, Roma, Jews, gays, uncircumcised males, the obese, and women out of the ER.

In this admittedly extreme yet plausible scenario, that leaves the vast majority of Americans with absolutely NO access to any kind of medical care AT ALL.

It's ok though. Big job recovery and advancement possibilities for survivors.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Right but you still have to find a PCP or urgent care that will take someone that's uninsured

All you have to do is pay a significant portion. Six years ago, I wasn't insured and I had to go do several things. I always paid in full, at the point of service, though. You just have to have the money.

But, I don't see a problem with having to pay for services. The insurance is there to lessen the blow.

Originally posted by dadudemon
All you have to do is pay a significant portion. Six years ago, I wasn't insured and I had to go do several things. I always paid in full, at the point of service, though. You just have to have the money.

But, I don't see a problem with having to pay for services. The insurance is there to lessen the blow.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Yeah, in Europe and Canada death panels and free healthcare kill over 900000000000000 people a day.

Listen, if socialized medicine worked, America would be using it. Simple, really.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
The problem is that this would give them the right to refuse people regardless of ability to pay and in medical emergencies or to stop critical care as soon as your money ran out and toss you into the street.

So?

If it's a private orgnization, why do they have to give away their money if they don't want to? 🙂

Originally posted by dadudemon
So?

If it's a private orgnization, why do they have to give away their money if they don't want to? 🙂

Originally posted by Robtard
Listen, if socialized medicine worked, America would be using it. Simple, really.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
because it violates the hippocratic oath and legally is criminal negligence and manslaughter (at the least)?

Without EMTALA, it is not criminal negligence. It does not violate the hypcratic oath, either. There are legit people that may not get services that may die or suffer permanent damager because others, who cannot afford those services, are ahead of them. Does it not violate the hypcratic oath to be irresponsable and just accept all?

Indeed, it is a slippery slope argument to say it violates the hypocratic oath.

In a system of private medical organizations, and no public option, it's a two way street. (Which was exactly my point.)

It definitely isn't manslaughter beacuse they didn't do anything directly or indirectly that killed them. It was inaction and those laws vary from state to state. (good samaritan laws) Nice try?