He was apparently unconscious, initially.
Perhaps I ought to have been more clear. Yes, someone knocked unconscious from trauma deserves to be in the ER, and in my book deserves some radiation.
What I was referring to was the number of patients I see every day who come in then get upset about receiving care. The asthmatic who starts a treatment for significant wheezing but then asks "How long will this take? I'm meeting someone in an hour..." or who gets upset that he needs to be admitted after many treatments and steroids. I'm talking about the dehydrated gastro who needs fluids after a week, but refuses her IV because she 'doesn't like needles.' I honestly don't see why they come in the first place, then they whine about costs.
This guy would've ended up with a hospital bill > $5000, not $600. CXR, CT, basic trauma labs, and probably a 24 hour obs. So yeah, I would pay even that amount for my health, but I don't blame him. He's out of a job, no insurance. He could certainly face bankruptcy for a hospital bill he has no idea how it might turn out.
You're aware how hospital billing works? Hospitals, ERs included only receive a fraction of that bill because it's negotiated. Now you have such faith in government, but it's our own government that prevents us from discounting prices to those who can't afford it. No joke East Carolina ran a free walk in clinic. It got shut down because medicaid said 'if you can see some patients for free, you can see all for free and we will not reimburse you.' In other words, if we want to get paid by the government, we can't give anyone breaks. That's the government at work.
Most hospitals will actually end up eating the bill from those who can't pay, but those people still get care. And the article notes (accurately) that patients who need help paying are generally shown ways that they can. It's in the hospital's best interest to try and get something.
The better question is, why do we as a country "treat everyone who walks into the door" but don't mind letting them go bankrupt because of it and spiral into depression, suicide, and whatnot. Oh, that's right, because we don't have the collective balls to decide whether we're going to be hard-hearted capitalists all the way and just let the poor people die when they have unaffordable medical issues, or full socialists and treat everyone as a 'right'.
I'm not certain why it has to be one versus the other. My point is stated bluntly in the article posted. "They're really making conscious decisions about what they do and don't want done." Make them pay
something, anything is all I'm saying, and you'll likely find that people's health and how they take care of themselve becomes something worthwhile. If you think health care is a right, then it's an entitlement, and you're saying that it all has to be given to you. I say it's a responsibility, both of the people and of the providers. The difference is a responsibility is a two way street. Universal coverage will result in rationing. We will have to be much more conscious about the tests we order and we'll all have to live with it.
And GeneralVeers, your point is taken re how medical students always argue the socialism side while the one's out in the field think private-market all the way. We probably don't have the cynicism that comes with dealing with the crazy system and people we have here, but I argue numbers, not emotion. And our system is simply unaffordable even if we just treat rich people.
Don't mistake experience for cynicism. Give yourself a few years, and I'm sure your satin white soul will see things differently.
What numbers do you speak of? Other countries run cheaper medical care, but there's always a price. I've said it before, having lived under other systems, there are great things and not so great things. But America as a culture is currently unwilling to pay the price, either financially or emotionally.
