Colorado health insurers seek 27 percent premium increase in individual market

[CaliCat 3,957]

40 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

 

You missed the point entirely here. I was not suggesting that people rely on charity care just because it is there nor was I suggesting it is a good way to run our health care system. I was simply refuting the assertion made by some here that people are simply left to die because they can't pay. 

 

People are left to die because they can't pay, and the disaster bill proposed by the so-called president will make that even worse.

 

If everyone gets the same level of care, regardless of ability to pay, why have insurance at all? LOL.

 

I don't think I missed the point, where there wasn't one to begin wtih.

Edited July 17, 2017 by CaliCat

[IAMX 3,055]

1 hour ago, jg121783 said:

 

You missed the point entirely here. I was not suggesting that people rely on charity care just because it is there nor was I suggesting it is a good way to run our health care system. I was simply refuting the assertion made by some here that people are simply left to die because they can't pay. 

Whoever says people are left to die are simply full of it, kinda illegal to just leave people to die.

[bcking 3,157]

EMTALA is a Federal Law created in the 80's that requires all hospitals to provide emergency treatment to stabilize patients

 

It is for emergency treatment and stabilization. It doesn't state that hospitals have to admit patients and fully treat them. They have to be stabilized to go home. They don't have to be cured/treated of their disease. Just treated enough so they are no longer an emergency.

 

While no one gets "left to die", people do ultimately die because they lack access to care. They don't get the treatment needed when it wasn't an emergency and the treatment would have been effective, so instead they get worse and present in an "emergency" when their disease has progressed beyond the point of treating. 

[CaliCat 3,957]

15 minutes ago, bcking said:

EMTALA is a Federal Law created in the 80's that requires all hospitals to provide emergency treatment to stabilize patients

 

It is for emergency treatment and stabilization. It doesn't state that hospitals have to admit patients and fully treat them. They have to be stabilized to go home. They don't have to be cured/treated of their disease. Just treated enough so they are no longer an emergency.

 

While no one gets "left to die", people do ultimately die because they lack access to care. They don't get the treatment needed when it wasn't an emergency and the treatment would have been effective, so instead they get worse and present in an "emergency" when their disease has progressed beyond the point of treating. 

 

And people who pay insurance premiums end up paying for the expensive treatment that in the end, fails the patient who dies.

 

 

 

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

23 hours ago, jg121783 said:

 

I have read about people in countries with socialized health care such as the UK dying while on a waiting list of illnesses that could have been easily treated if they were taken care of right away. Bill Is correct. It works well for healthy people but sick people generally get the short end if the stick. 

Two examples of it not working.

 

My sister was diagnosed with having a tumor on her brain/neck area, for about 12 months the docs decided to leave it be. Last October she was informed it had to be removed urgently and to expect to be called in asap. The surgery was postponed repeatedly because they had no beds available due to emergencies over different weekends. The surgery was eventually performed 13 weeks ago, discharged 6 days after the tumor was removed and despite numerous returns  to the emergency room because she was sick as anything and a major swelling down the back of her neck. 7 weeks ago they admitted her and put a shunt in, apparently she had a cerebral fluid leak, we were told we were lucky the swelling went out instead of in... this despite our repeated trips to the emergency room.

 

Four days after the shunt was put in she was discharged and continually got sicker, again despite calls to the doctors they just said she needed time to recover. 10 days later she was rushed back to the hospital and had emergency surgery to remove the shunt, her cerebral fluid was infected and she was diagnosed with ventricultis  and possibly meningitis. She has had 5 trips back to the theater to have external drains put in,. Currently she has a drain coming out either side of the top of her head, she has not been awake bar a few confused words for the past six weeks. Tomorrow she goes back to surgery to have the two drains replaced, our family is distraught and feel the rush to release her from hospital is what made my sister sick. The system is overloaded and can't cope with the urgent needs of the patients. 

 

Example two

 

My brother in law survived a battle with cancer which came really close to killing him a few years ago. Recently he was diagnosed as having a malignant lump on one of his kidneys and surgery was arranged to remove it at the beginning of June. The surgery was postponed and rescheduled for August no reason given.  

 

I will try balance both by saying it worked for my wife. Five years ago she was diagnosed with cervical cancer and the surgery was performed within two days (radical hysterectomy) and her radiation treatment and subsequent follow ups were perfect. She is now five years clear and it is the reason we didn't move to the US sooner there is no way we could have afforded the surgery and follow up treatment.

 

Depending on the treatment needed socialized healthcare can work but when it gets in to more specialty surgery it slows down(waiting lists) and doesn't function as well.

 

So socialized healthcare works if you can afford the wait. The US system scares me, $900 last year while over on a holiday for a swollen lip was the bill to our insurance company. 3 years ago the bill it was $3500 for a kidney infection that my wife got. Over here I would have went to see a local doctor and paid 50 euro and got a prescription the same would have worked for my wife. 

 

There has to be a balance between both systems that works for everyone, lives are being ruined by both.

 

 

Edited July 17, 2017 by Mr&Mrs G.

[OriZ 3,165]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

EMTALA is a Federal Law created in the 80's that requires all hospitals to provide emergency treatment to stabilize patients

 

It is for emergency treatment and stabilization. It doesn't state that hospitals have to admit patients and fully treat them. They have to be stabilized to go home. They don't have to be cured/treated of their disease. Just treated enough so they are no longer an emergency.

 

While no one gets "left to die", people do ultimately die because they lack access to care. They don't get the treatment needed when it wasn't an emergency and the treatment would have been effective, so instead they get worse and present in an "emergency" when their disease has progressed beyond the point of treating. 

Exactly, and just because something isn't "life threatening" per se doesn't mean it can't be "life crippling" even if it doesn't eventually lead to death.

[jg121783 3,921]

2 hours ago, CaliCat said:

 

People are left to die because they can't pay, and the disaster bill proposed by the so-called president will make that even worse.

Two things. People are not left to die because that is illegal. Secondly Trump did not propose the bill currently being debated. If anyone is behind it it would be Paul Ryan. Trump is just sitting back and allowing Congress to hash things out. In fact he has said let's just repeal Obamacare now (which overall would put us in a better situation) and work out a replacement bill after.

 

2 hours ago, CaliCat said:

If everyone gets the same level of care, regardless of ability to pay, why have insurance at all? LOL.

 

Isn't that how socialized healthcare is supposed to work? Everyone gets the same level of care regardless of ability to pay. In reality though the rich get the care they need and everyone else is put on waiting lists while at the same time their taxes go way up to fund the system.

 

2 hours ago, CaliCat said:

I don't think I missed the point, where there wasn't one to begin wtih.

You missed the point entirely. I was responding to someone who claimed people are left to die if they can't pay by explaining that one way or another they will be treated. I was not making excuses for or advocating for our current system. Just pointing out that people aren't just left to die.

[jg121783 3,921]

3 hours ago, smilesammich said:

"charity care" sounds like hospitals writing off unpaid debt from poor people's emergency room visits, nothing more.

Actually when someone defaults on their debt it is normally written off. With charity care the hospital (or in some cases another entity) sets aside a certain amount of funds to cover the patient's bills so they don't have to default on the debt and the hospital doesn't have to write it off.

[smilesammich 10,727]

3 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Actually when someone defaults on their debt it is normally written off. With charity care the hospital (or in some cases another entity) sets aside a certain amount of funds to cover the patient's bills so they don't have to default on the debt and the hospital doesn't have to write it off.

it can go either way. hospitals don't 'normally' write off debt, they normally attempt to arrange payment (via payment plan) and if that doesn't work, they can get a judgement and garnish wages. i'm familiar with what you're referring to as 'charity care' as this was how a portion of my bill from having my son was paid in full without a judgement or garnishment of my wages. the job i had when i was pregnant with my son was an hour away, and the hospital i gave birth in was out of network. since i wasn't employed for six weeks after my son was born and the hospital did get insurance payment (just not the full amount they wanted), they wrote off the excess that was billed due to being out of network. thousands of dollars i didn't have, at all.

[IAMX 3,055]

3 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Actually when someone defaults on their debt it is normally written off. With charity care the hospital (or in some cases another entity) sets aside a certain amount of funds to cover the patient's bills so they don't have to default on the debt and the hospital doesn't have to write it off.

This is true, apparently some people don't understand the concept of writing off. There is no write-off if the receivable account into a contra-asset and expense if the debt is paid, whether by insurance, charity, or mickey mouse.