Plastic Surgeon salary after obamacare?

[rentedmule]

So you don't think that EMTALA is being abused and/or encourages people to not pay for care and instead wait to show up to the ER? Of course access to care is a significant issue, and we might argue that improved access would decrease the number of people that use ERs as PCPs, but what if people didn't have this "safety net" to rely on to begin with?

Your conservative-leaning views are laughable. You are basically adapting the often popular "cadillac welfare queen" stance to EMTALA. Basically, these uninsured/underinsured individuals are rolling in the dough and robbing the system by letting treatable conditions mature to a life-threatening stage and then hitting up the ER. Of course none wants to or benefits from suffering for months/years until the condition is worse enough to go to the ER. The system is "being abused" because millions of individuals would have to file bankruptcy if they actually initiated treatment for certain conditions (the leading cause of bankruptcy in most of the last decade; here's and example: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/suppl/2005/01/28/hlthaff.w5.63.DC1). If people didn't have that safety net they would be getting screwed in a more expedient rate (e.g. death).

Also, there is no "divinity" associated with whatever services/benefits our society deems to be "rights." If you are of a certain religion then yes, you probably associate them with divinity, but that's your prerogative and doesn't contribute anything valuable to the matter.

Healthcare is a "privilege" in this country because we have a pay-for-service for-profit system. We let the free market take care of everything. What could possibly go wrong... As a country/society we can and should (I made a case in my PS for it even) make care accessible and affordable. It is no different than using taxes to pay for the military which is in place to prevent some entity from harming you. Subsidizing care would protect you from bodily harm in a similar manner and bolster your right to the pursuit of happiness and other aspects of the Constitution. Plus, it makes a lot of sense financially. Instead of paying for the overhead and profits of for-profit insurance conglomerates, we can put that money into providing actual preventative care, for one thing, to citizens so they don't become a drain on the system in the first place. Personal responsibility should obviously play a significant role into all of this as well. A reward system can be implemented to encourage healthy behavior. This doesn't mean that it is best for government to control the administration of care 100%, but it is generally not a good idea to let greedy corporations (*gasp* I kid, I kid most corporations strive to help people) run amok with minimal regulation. A balance can obviously be struck (easier said then done, yes) between public/private if that's what the citizens want. It doesn't matter if you call it or make it a "right." It just makes sense both because it is a good thing overall for society (as is education and military protection) and it makes sense financially.

Comparing it to cable or electricity is just stupid. Not having cable is not liable to potentially kill you or make your life miserable.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Gut Shot]

So you don't think that EMTALA is being abused and/or encourages people to not pay for care and instead wait to show up to the ER?

No, I do not think that EMTALA is being abused. About the only way one could abuse it would be to go from ER to ER demanding screening exams to find out if one's condition is truly life threatening. Aside from that, hospitals can elect to treat based on policy.

If you don't like that many hospitals administer uncompensated primary care services through their ERs, what does that say about our system? You know, the one that outspends every other industrialized nation per capita (by far), and yet is the only one that fails to provide universal coverage?

 

[Gut Shot]

It absolutely does further the discussion.

So you claim that it furthers the discussion, and then go on to demonstrate (quite perfectly) that the right vs. privilege debate actually just confines the topic within a dichotomous framework. How... limiting.

Some people believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and therefore needs to be either completely accepted or completely rejected. That's a simple approach, but it ignores great deal of nuance concerning the Bible's contents, authors, historical significance, and the multitude of interpretations it has seen over the centuries. It's a rich series of documents that are many things to many people.

In other words, it's not very wise to take a complex, multifaceted subject and cram it into a black/white argument about the validity of one side versus the other.

 

[NickNaylor]

Your conservative-leaning views are laughable. You are basically adapting the often popular "cadillac welfare queen" stance to EMTALA. Basically, these uninsured/underinsured individuals are rolling in the dough and robbing the system by letting treatable conditions mature to a life-threatening stage and then hitting up the ER. Of course none wants to or benefits from suffering for months/years until the condition is worse enough to go to the ER. The system is "being abused" because millions of individuals would have to file bankruptcy if they actually initiated treatment for certain conditions (the leading cause of bankruptcy in most of the last decade; here's and example: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/suppl/2005/01/28/hlthaff.w5.63.DC1). If people didn't have that safety net they would be getting screwed in a more expedient rate (e.g. death).

Also, there is no "divinity" associated with whatever services/benefits our society deems to be "rights." If you are of a certain religion then yes, you probably associate them with divinity, but that's your prerogative and doesn't contribute anything valuable to the matter.

Healthcare is a "privilege" in this country because we have a pay-for-service for-profit system. We let the free market take care of everything. What could possibly go wrong... As a country/society we can and should (I made a case in my PS for it even) make care accessible and affordable. It is no different than using taxes to pay for the military which is in place to prevent some entity from harming you. Subsidizing care would protect you from bodily harm in a similar manner and bolster your right to the pursuit of happiness and other aspects of the Constitution. Plus, it makes a lot of sense financially. Instead of paying for the overhead and profits of for-profit insurance conglomerates, we can put that money into providing actual preventative care, for one thing, to citizens so they don't become a drain on the system in the first place. Personal responsibility should obviously play a significant role into all of this as well. A reward system can be implemented to encourage healthy behavior. This doesn't mean that it is best for government to control the administration of care 100%, but it is generally not a good idea to let greedy corporations (*gasp* I kid, I kid most corporations strive to help people) run amok with minimal regulation. A balance can obviously be struck (easier said then done, yes) between public/private if that's what the citizens want. It doesn't matter if you call it or make it a "right." It just makes sense both because it is a good thing overall for society (as is education and military protection) and it makes sense financially.

Comparing it to cable or electricity is just stupid. Not having cable is not liable to potentially kill you or make your life miserable.

With respect to EMTALA, no, I don't think "Cadillac queens" are common. And I agree that the lack of access is the primary reason that people utilize ERs as PCPs in the first place.

I'm not sure where "divinity" came into the discussion as I didn't even even mention that, but ok.

I completely agree with all of the bolded part of your post. I don't have any problem with universal coverage. I thought I was quite clear that I'm for it - just not as a socialized model. And there is an important distinction between something that's a right and simply something that people should receive. It really isn't just semantics - that was my point. There is a real and significant difference when you say that healthcare is a right vs. healthcare is something we should provide to our society. I don't think we're arguing about two different issues here. Maybe on how to implement universal coverage, sure, but not that it is a necessity to implement.

 

[doc44ever]

That's my boy!

 

[Gut Shot]

I don't have any problem with universal coverage. I thought I was quite clear that I'm for it - just not as a socialized model.

Socialized insurance or socialized delivery?

 

[rentedmule]

With respect to EMTALA, no, I don't think "Cadillac queens" are common. And I agree that the lack of access is the primary reason that people utilize ERs as PCPs in the first place.

I'm not sure where "divinity" came into the discussion as I didn't even even mention that, but ok.

I completely agree with all of the bolded part of your post. I don't have any problem with universal coverage. I thought I was quite clear that I'm for it - just not as a socialized model. And there is an important distinction between something that's a right and simply something that people should receive. It really isn't just semantics - that was my point. There is a real and significant difference when you say that healthcare is a right vs. healthcare is something we should provide to our society. I don't think we're arguing about two different issues here. Maybe on how to implement universal coverage, sure, but not that it is a necessity to implement.

My bad, I accidentally associated Narmer's comment about divinity with yours when you quoted it.

I don't think the distinction is as important or as black and white as you imply between the two. What is your actual definition of a right and where do rights come from? God? Government? The People?
Again, my point is it should be a right, not that "it is." I am arguing from more or less the Enlightenment definition.