Originally posted by MacSwainno, I'm not stupid. But I'm afraid your posts, although helpful, are not clear. I'll ask one questions that, if you'd be kind enough to answer, will hopefully help clear this up:
Are you stupid or something?
After each post I give, you come back with some assinine question trying to twist the wording. You simply do not want to hear anything outside the little box your mind resides in. Must be horrible for you when the invented paradigm you hide behind is splintered.
Read my previous posts, they are perfectly clear.
can anyone from any nation (let's say, our UK man with his broken ankle) walk into any public US hospital and get treated for any presented ailment without having to pay for it/have insurance that'll pay for it?
1 edit
Originally posted by belgianfreakNot stupid? Actions speak louder than words my friend. You continue to ask the same questions hoping for a different answer.
no, I'm not stupid. But I'm afraid your posts, although helpful, are not clear. I'll ask one questions that, if you'd be kind enough to answer, will hopefully help clear this up:
can anyone from any nation (let's say, our UK man with his broken ankle) walk into any public US hospital and get treated for any presented ailment without having to pay for it/have insurance that'll pay for it?
I will try to help you for the LAST time, since you obviously don't have needed skills for computer searches. Two last items: don't try informing me on the UK system as I am fully versed. Two, I stand by my opinion, the USA already has socialized health care, perhaps more socialized than in Britain, only the citizenry do not know it yet.
"The influx of Illegal Aliens has devastating, hidden medical consequences. We judge reality primarily by what we see. But what we do not see can be more dangerous, more expensive, and more deadly than what is seen. [1] Illegal Aliens’ stealthy assaults on medicine now must rouse Americans to alarmed alert."
"EMTALA requires each Emergency Room to treat anyone who enters with an “emergency” associated with cough, headache, hangnail, cardiac arrest, herniated lumbar disc, drug addiction, alcohol overdose, gunshot injury, automobile trauma, HIV-positive infection, mental problem, or personality disorder. Definition of emergency is flexible and vague enough to include almost any condition as requiring mandatory care. Any patient coming to a hospital emergency room requesting emergency care must be screened and treated until stabilized for discharge or stabilized for transfer whether or not insured, whether or not “documented,” and whether or not able to pay."
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=9572
"We're mandated to treat anyone who comes in through those doors, regardless of their ability to pay," "Tracey Veal, a spokeswoman for the Northridge hospital, said. Illegal aliens receiving this free service should be number one on the list. Preventing illegals from being here in the first place is a law after all. The county estimates the cost of providing them with health care is $340 million annually."
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000060.html
"When Hillary Clinton proposed a universal health care system, she only had the comparatively modest goal of providing socialized medicine to all American citizens. Now, public hospitals in Texas' largest counties are outdoing the former First Lady and defying federal law by continuing to deliver unlimited free health care services to illegal immigrants."
"First, we must ask whether Texas taxpayers have an obligation to provide free health care to all of the citizens of Mexico, or even for all the world's citizens. This question is relevant because the only difference between an illegal Mexican immigrant who successfully crosses the border and a Mexican citizen who remains in Mexico is that the former has broken our laws. Why shouldn't Texas taxpayers' largesse simply be used to open a public hospital on the other side of the border and save Mexicans the trip?"
http://www.vdare.com/misc/levin_illegals_in_er.htm
edit-added quotation marks
1 edit
Originally posted by MacSwainI again appreciate your lengthy response. It's not lack of ability to search the net, but rather lack of time right now. I was hoping to elicit first hand knowledge of the US healthcare system rather than read potentially biased articles that I couldn't then ask more about.
Not stupid? Actions speak louder than words my friend. You continue to ask the same questions hoping for a different answer.
I will try to help you for the LAST time, since you obviously don't have needed skills for computer searches. Two last items: don't try informing me on the UK system as I am fully versed. Two, I stand by my opinion, the USA alread p://www.vdare.com/misc/levin_illegals_in_er.htm
edit-added quotation marks
Your mention of EMTALA was particularly helpful, as it has pointed me directly to the very legislation that governs this issue.
From "http://www.emtala.com/faq.htm"
"Any patient who "comes to the emergency department" requesting "examination or treatment for a medical condition" must be provided with "an appropriate medical screening examination" to determine if he is suffering from an "emergency medical condition". If he is, then the hospital is obligated to either provide him with treatment until he is stable or to transfer him to another hospital in conformance with the statute's directives.
If the patient does not have an "emergency medical condition", the statute imposes no further obligation on the hospital."
This clears up the point I was searching for, which is whether US public hospitals had to provide any treatment for free, or just "emergency" treatment. The EMTALA website I quoted above would appear to clear that up, that the need for "emergency" treatment must be assessed on arrival at the hospital. I would expect any civilised country to do just this - to provide emergency treatment to all people who need it rather than watch them die on the spot - and it is to be applauded. But going back to the original example of our UK patient, surely he would be turned away as a chronic, not emergency, case. Or would he...?
The issue then, I think, is: what constitutes an "emergency"? One of the articles you quote states that definition to be "flexible and vague" and to include "cough, headache, hangnail... drug addiction... HIV-positive infection, mental problem, or personality disorder" all of which I would not consider medical "emergencies".
Is the definition really "flexible and vague". The EMTALA site itself admits that it "leaves much to be desired" and that ultimately the decision of whether a condition is an emergency is left down to the attending physician. The definition as it stands is:
"A medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in --
placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or
serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part..."
(I've left out the final part which pertains directly to women who present already in labour)
Is this really subjective enough to allow mean that a "hangnail" must be treated - I think not. I also think that our friend with the broken ankle would excluded because the cause of his pain was chronic, not acute.
I am not saying that the system is not abused. I am 100% sure that foreign nationals intentionally come to the US knowing that they are ill, and then present to the ER when it becomes an acute emergency - the same (as, from your claim to know the UK system, you'll already be aware) happens here. What I still argue is that your insinuation that anyone can get treatment for anything for free is not correct.
I would also ague that I would rather live poor than rich in a country that transfers acutely ill patients to charity hospitals, to have them die on the way, because they don't have medicare. And it is precisely to prevent these actions that EMTALA was created.
Originally posted by belgianfreakYou have a marvelous ability to screen any info to meet your pre-determined conclusions. May you prosper.
I again appreciate your lengthy response. It's not lack of ability to search the net, but rather lack of time right now. I was hoping to elicit first hand knowledge of the US healthcare system rather than read potentially biased articles that I couldn't then ask more about.
Your mention of EMTALA was particularly helpful, as it has pointed me directl ...[text shortened]... cisely to prevent these actions that EMTALA was created.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5296200.stm
“Very obese women should be denied fertility treatment”
“Being overweight can put both the health of the mother and child at risk through problems such as gestational diabetes and high blood pressure.”
Since this avoids additional costs to NHS due to complications, should not the next logical step (in the name of fairness to all) be to force all obese women who conceive to abort? Otherwise benefits will be denied to avoid those same additional costs.
Originally posted by MacSwainBut you don't appear to refute my conclusions.
You have a marvelous ability to screen any info to meet your pre-determined conclusions. May you prosper.
Despite your grand insinuations that anyone from anywhere could con the US into free treatment, and links to frankly right wing anti-immigrant sites complaining that treating illegal immigrants is collapsing the system because they can do just this, reading the US Government's own literature on the subject makes it clear that this is not true.
The only treatment available is (evaluation for and if needed) emergency treatment beyond that, if you don't have the insurance where do you go? Der Swartz was talking about his county hospital being pretty good - would they treat people without insurance in non-emergency cases? Or would it be down to the charity hospitals? How good are they?
Originally posted by belgianfreakI have done nothing but refute your misinformation and at every turn you re-issue your same unfounded mysticisms.
But you don't appear to refute my conclusions.
Or would it be down to the charity hospitals? How good are they?
Tell me about these charity hospitals you have discovered. You must tell me how good they are, as this is the first I have heard of them. Where are they? Who operates them? How did you discover them? This will be very interesting since you have made them up! I will not be satisfied with anything short of a full discription.
1 edit
Originally posted by MacSwainYou haven't refuted anything - you've given generalised and inflated opinions about how any illegal immigrant can get any treatment they wish, and you've quoted from some heavily right wing, anti-immigrant websites that say the same thing. What I've done is quote the actual government legislation. It's not me who won't let go of preconceived ideas.
I have done nothing but refute your misinformation and at every turn you re-issue your same unfounded mysticisms.
Tell me about these charity hospitals you have discovered. You must tell me how good they are, as this is the first I have heard of them. Where are they? Who operates them? How did you discover them? This will be very interesting since you have made them up! I will not be satisfied with anything short of a full discription.
I heard about charity hospitals from the same ETMALA website I got the rest of my info:
The avowed purpose of [ETMALA] is to prevent hospitals from rejecting patients, refusing to treat them, or transferring them to "charity hospitals" or "county hospitals" because they are unable to pay or are covered under the Medicare or Medicaid programs.
That's all I know about them, which is why I was aking about them. If they're made up I didn't to the imaginatory work.
Originally posted by belgianfreak"It is illegal for foreigners to enter the United States of America without proper visas and documentation and are subject to deportation otherwise."
You haven't refuted anything - you've given generalised and inflated opinions about how any illegal immigrant can get any treatment they wish, and you've quoted from some heavily right wing, anti-immigrant websites that say the same thing. What I've done is quote the actual government legislation. It's not me who won't let go of preconceived ideas.
I ...[text shortened]... is why I was aking about them. If they're made up I didn't to the imaginatory work.
THAT IS LAW
"The EMTALA site itself admits that ultimately the decision of whether a condition is an emergency is left to the attending physician."
THAT IS LAW
There is no debate that illegal immigration is ignored. Why would you think that the letter of EMTALA is obeyed. Fact is, EVERYONE is accepted as treatment is "LEFT UP TO THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN". You can call anything you want right wing..but facts still remain facts.
Another factoid...Illegal aliens who are subject to deportation but found to be pregnant are held in USA until they deliver and before you ASSUME their water is already broken, this can be a period of weeks or months.
I still wonder why your attack of healthcare in USA justifies not placing a pin in the poor smokers ankle?
Originally posted by MacSwainThe letter of the law for EMTALA is a hell of a lot more likely to be obeyed because it's the doctors, not the immigrants, who have to obey it. Why would a doctor break the EMTALA laws? He'd get his arse chewed off by his boss, or even fired, for giving out treatment that he shouldn't.
"It is illegal for foreigners to enter the United States of America without proper visas and documentation and are subject to deportation otherwise."
THAT IS LAW
"The EMTALA site itself admits that ultimately the decision of whether a condition is an emergency is left to the attending physician."
THAT IS LAW
There is no debate that illegal immigrati ...[text shortened]... hy your attack of healthcare in USA justifies not placing a pin in the poor smokers ankle?
Illegal imigrants giving birth on US soil - that's another issue. I don't deny that women intentionally try to give birth in the US to gain citizenship (does that law still exist - I heard it was being reviewed), but that does not equate to "anyone getting any treatment for anything they like" which is what you originally held.
We got sidetracked from the guy with his knackered ankle because someone (I forget who) claimed that he could come to the US and get it done. Which he couldn't, from what I've seen so far, unless he paid for it - and he could do that in the UK (if there were any doctors unprincipled enough to take his cash despite the greater risk to his overall health).
Your new thread complaining of a proposal to not give IVF for obese women is along the same lines, so I think we'll pick up the discussion we deviated from there.
1 edit
Originally posted by belgianfreakYour are wrong. Please give source of your knowledge. I will accept Left and/or Right wing sources.
[b]The letter of the law for EMTALA is a hell of a lot more likely to be obeyed because it's the doctors, not the immigrants, who have to obey it. Why would a doctor break the EMTALA laws? He'd get his arse chewed off by his boss, or even fired, for giving out treatment that he shouldn't.
Originally posted by belgianfreakYou are trying to convince me you are stupid again lefty. You think one law IS being broken but insist another being broken is impossible?
[b]I don't deny that women intentionally try to give birth in the US to gain citizenship, but that does not equate to "anyone getting any treatment for anything they like"
“The EMTALA site itself admits the decision of whether a condition is an emergency is left down to the attending physician.” The physician will not "get his arse chewed off" as you say. HE IS THE ARBITER AND IS VEEERY UNLIKELY TO TURN HIMSELF IN.
“Each year, thousands of women enter the United States illegally to give birth, knowing that their child will thus have U.S. citizenship. Their children immediately qualify for a slew of federal, state, and local benefit programs. In addition, when the children turn 21, they can sponsor the immigration of other relatives, becoming "anchor babies" for an entire clan.”
“The United States is unusual in its offer of citizenship to anyone born on its soil. Only a few European countries still grant automatic citizenship at birth. The United Kingdom and Australia repealed their U.S.-style policies in the 1980s after witnessing abuses similar to those plaguing the U.S. today.”
If John Nuttal could get himself onto USA soil – he would be treated.
Originally posted by AmauroteMy argument, for the 50th time rests on an indivduals soveriegnty over their own life, and their right to live that life free from force and threats of force. This is never going to be fully realised, there are, unfortunately, always going to be those think they're better at running our lives than we are ourselves. This is the basis for your philosophy, yet about the best qualifier you can come up with is - that's the way most people happen to think at a given time.
If your entire argument is based on the silly semantic cavil that nothing is free because everything costs something, you're in even worse trouble than I initially thought.
The NHS is free to thousands of people who do not pay tax because they are below the tax bracket, although some may pay for prescriptions or contribute through indirect taxation. The ...[text shortened]... ime beneficiaries of random inheritance (current UK and US social mobility: zero) is ludicrous.
Why bother defending the meaning of the word "free"?
Because it's being hijacked and corrupted by the busybody control freaks. The only time something is 'free' is when it has been provided voluntarily, by all means go ahead and tack other words onto it like "...at the point of delivery" to maintain your charade but please refrain from using a word that is so utterly alien to your philosophy.
Originally posted by mrstabbyWhat you need to ask yourself is: Wouldn't Somalia, and indeed, much of Africa benefit form some good old individualism and what comes with that - the right to hold property. The exact opposite of what you preach.
Morals are based on evolutionary instincts, one of which is survival. Morals are also dependent on circumstance, which is why there are no absolutes (or if there are, I'm yet to see one) like you are trying to make out.
When faced with death, would you not steal to keep yourself or loved ones alive? Your moral values are very nice in the world you've mad ...[text shortened]... tion, or violence? If you can't tell the difference, then try living in Somalia for a while.
Originally posted by belgianfreakOccasionally there is a glimmer of hope
but would you really want to live in a world without taxes. I'm sure a lot of i is wasted, but I'm quite happy for roads (bumpy as they can be), bin men, hospitals, police (not sure about that last one...) etc...
Taxation can be seen the same way as the house kitty at my place. We all agree to throw in a fiver periodically, and it goes to stuff that ...[text shortened]... te to the good of the community but would rather not when we could get a new TV instead.
"We all agree to throw in a fiver periodically,"