- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,531
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
It happens more often with the uninsured.
That last bit is nonsense. The first, again, that happens with insured people too.
Well, in the university hospital where I worked, if you crumped in the clinic building across the street from the hospital, you gave a patient lifesaving care or stabilized them and called 911. The ambulance literally would show up at the door, gurney the patient in, and drive 200 feet to the ambulance bay and get him in hte ED. Im sure it works this way in private offices too. They dont turn you away -they call 911.
No one is denied access. However, increased wait times ARE a form of denied access.
Really? Where were those kids from and what procedures were they?
They were from all over.
Here's a link to the details about their international care service (for foreign people):
Overview*|*Boston Children's Hospital
Some were there for cancer treatments. I remember a Chinese girl who had Spina Bifida. I'm honestly not sure what most had because they didn't speak much English. I did get friendly with a mother from Austria whose child had severe heart problems, but what they were specifically I never got (my German isn't so good anymore)
Here, since google doesn't seem to work for you:
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital
Take a look around.
I did not get very far, "In the last decade, Boston Children's Hospital has provided state-of-the-art medical services, access and accommodations to more than 1,000 patients from more than 100 countries." Lets see, that is about 100 patients a year or depending on length of stay probably one or two on the unit at most at one time...and you ran into half a unit?
I said half the floor. There were 10 rooms on the floor. There are many floors in that hospital. I know at least 4 of them were foreign - two I already mentioned.
Really?
People without insurance are not denied access to doctors?
So an uninsured cancer patient can just ring up an oncologist on the phone and they will get an appointment to be treated with expensive meds?
I said half the floor. There were 10 rooms on the floor. There are many floors in that hospital. I know at least 4 of them were foreign - two I already mentioned.
Dont start acting like a brainiac, you aint.
Well, they were brown looking, anyway. :shrug:
Thanks, but it answers your silly question with an appropriate answer. And just how would you know I'm not a "brainiac"? You've demonstrated no judgement here in that regard.
You do know there are many resources available for cancer patients who have no insurance, yes?
You do know that many people with life threatening conditions don't receive treatment until they are actually dying, yes?
And those were just two measures.
Believe it or not, specialists and elective surgery are not the only types of medical care people wait for. We do poorly on those, which may explain why they weren't included in your post, even though those #'s come from the same source (the Commonwealth study)
They get it the moment it's "life threatening".
Did you actually look at those comparisons? The US is still in the lowest wait times position, across the board. Germany and Switzerland, with far, far fewer participants in the system are the only ones who are lower, and then just barely.
As for expense, take a look at the scale of each system. There are little to no economies of scale in this context. We are one of the largest countries, geographically and population wise.
Which is often when they're dying.
And even if they're not dying right then and there, they do not receive the same available medical treatments an insured person would - treatments that could
1) Cure their condition
2) Extend their lives
3) Relieve symptoms.
4) Keep their conditions from impairing their quality of life or ability to work.
Which is often when they're dying.
And even if they're not dying right then and there, they do not receive the same available medical treatments an insured person would - treatments that could
1) Cure their condition
2) Extend their lives
3) Relieve symptoms.
4) Keep their conditions from impairing their quality of life or ability to work.
Did you actually look at those comparisons? The US is still in the lowest wait times position, across the board.
Germany and Switzerland, with far, far fewer participants in the system are the only ones who are lower, and then just barely.
As for expense, take a look at the scale of each system. There are little to no economies of scale in this context. We are one of the largest countries, geographically and population wise.
Lets say what you say is right, is the difference in 29% of people in hte ER waiting 2hrs or 43% in the US really worth 55% more cost? Are wait times really that important. Although I have seen studies that are much different.
Can you answer the question I asked? I'm asking because the implication is that there are millions of people who desperately want this kind of care you outlined but aren't getting it. How many people are in this kind of situation? It can't be many because they aren't signing up for Obamacare in droves.
Well...going by that, Obama did not lie about keeping your plan and doctor. He went by what his consultants and advisors gave him. Surely you are not suggesting Obama did the research himself--hell, he probably just read words of a TelePrompTer.
Aren't you guys the ones who say that's the only way he can speak?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?