I was told quite firmly that there is no healthcare problem in America today. Any person, at any time, can go into any emergency room for healthcare treatment and receive it. The real issue is not the absence of healthcare in America but the ability to pay for the healthcare we receive.
Q1: If any person can receive healthcare today, why are we reforming the healthcare system?
Q2: If people are denied healthcare when they go to Emergency Rooms at hospitals, why are we not hearing about this?
What should I tell the people who tell me there is no healthcare problem in America today? Remember, we are not talking about affording healthcare but the absence of healthcare for those who need it.
I can’t believe your serious.
Q1-We want to treat people before they have to go to the emergency room. I thought Bush was an idiot when he suggested the emergency room solution.
Q2-You’re serious right?
Finally, your last comment is surreal. The absence of health care is caused by those who can’t afford it, or have high premiums and put off visits.
John,
I think the law about emergency room treatment has been on the books since 1986 and is the primary source of irritation related to illegal immigrants receiving free healthcare. During the President’s radio interview with Smerconish yesterday at the White House this subject came up. The President cited an example that this law was needed to prevent children of illegal immigrants from spreading, for example, TB to the general population. Treating and preventing the spread of contagious diseases is reason enough to provide free healthcare to those who cannot afford to pay for it.But where is the line drawn on free healthcare, if at all?
And I am serious about question 2. I live in a rural area with one hospital, several clinics, and no significant source of news except planning commission meetings and festivals. There is a large (by our standards) immigrant population and if people were denied healthcare I think that this would be an ongoing story in the local papers but it is not.
I support a national, portable, comprehensive healthcare infrastructure that provides healthcare for all Americans. Within that goal are a number of options to address costs, availability, quality, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. Although I support this, my colleagues do not agree that this should be within the purview of the federal government.
The crux of my colleague’s argument is that if no one is denied healthcare why is our government changing the system? Does our federal government have the authority to impose change by forcing people to buy insurance when there is no healthcare crisis?
One problem with using the emergency room for one’s primary health care is that it only works if the emergency room is not overrun with others doing the same. As more and more people lose their employer-sponsored health insurance, more and more emergency rooms will be overrun. There are plenty of horror stories about people dying while waiting for treatment in the emergency room.
Another problem with emergency room health care is the lack of continuity of care or access to medical history. Any doctor will tell you that getting a good medical history is an important diagnostic tool. This is difficult to do in an emergency room setting.
Thanks, Jill. Good observations. I was also thinking that chronic issues are a problem with emergency room care. Emergency Room medicine is sort of break/fix and not intended for anything more than that.
Thanks for the clarification. I had no idea you were talking about non-citizens.
It’s still impossible to imagine turning away anyone when they need health care help. That perhaps is where liberal and conservative paths part. I wonder, who’s approach takes the high road?
Treating your colleagues like they have a reasonable argument is part of the problem. It only encourages them to “imagine death panels.”
“Treating your colleagues like they have a reasonable argument is part of the problem.”
I see this as respect for the person in toto in this case and not the argument he makes.
You can argue this is semantics, but it’s much more than that. The fact that all of these discussions use or assume a common definition of healthcare is a serious barrier to progress. Healthcare and healthcare insurance are NOT the same thing. It IS perfectly accurate to say everyone has access to free healthcare – via ER care and a federal, state and local programs that individuals may not even realize they’re eligible for. We can most certainly discuss whether this is adequate or whether there should be a higher level of minimum care. But conflating the issues or assuming we all have the same definition of healthcare or that it is exactly one defined thing…well when you don’t even start speaking he same language it’s all but impossible to come to reasonable a understanding.
I agree. And this is what began the discussion I had with my colleague. ‘What healthcare crisis?’ was his initial comment.
Undoubtedly there are people who are doing with less healthcare than they want or need. I believe that I am underinsured for my future healthcare needs. Like many Americans, I can choose a private plan vs a company plan but I think I cannot afford a private plan. I have catastrophic coverage for healthcare incidents but if I have a chronic condition and lose my job, I will still need to pay $5K each year before any new healthcare events will be covered.
It is no wonder that many bankruptcies occur as a result of health problems and their treatment costs.
Yup. You mentioned that word – catastrophic. Which brings up another part of the issue that get’s all lumped into one monolithic thing when it’s a separate issue. Healthcare/health insurance is both coverage for catastrophic care, and something that pays for every little trip to the doc, checkup, medication, etc. These are two very different things – it’s like expecting your home owner’s insurance to cover things like fire or hail damage and also pay for new house paint and windex for you to clean your windows.
And again, all of these separate issues which can be dealt with on their own with clear, targeted legislation having been debated on its merits.
I am not so sure that they can be dealt with on their own. Currently, insurance is commerce that is regulated by state governments and, I think, they decide what insurance plans should and should not contain. If each state were to change their laws/rules piecemeal, nationwide correction could take decades.
If the federal government establishes a health insurance exchange that supplants state control of insurance company plans then this can be accomplished in a single swoop.
In any case, I want to see more diversity in the insurance products and some new approaches to individuals providing for their own healthcare costs.