Extremely pissed off at local hospital., page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

reply posted on 21-8-2009 @ 03:02 PM by catamaran

Yes, if you had the lymph node problems for a good while and hadn't seen a doctor, it probably wasn't serious enough at that time to go to a ER; however, you are not the only person who has done this. Non emergency ER visits are common and all of them are not "no insurance no money" cases, everyone does this. At any rate, the ER doctor should have acted like a professional and addressed your problem. There is not only an ER problem here but also a doctor problem. Did he give you any follow up instructions? give you any meds or prescriptions? They will send you a bill so make sure your bill is correct--get an itemized statement. Get a copy of your ER record to take to a private doctor, free clinic or however you decide to pursue your health care.

Health care is a human right at this time, not only through reformed health care. Hospitals and all their departments have quality controls they should be following. There are peer review programs that should be followed. How is your hospital doing in that respect? I was on a quality team at one point in my 25 year employment at a hospital and when the surgery suite was surveyed, it was literally dirty. There are a lot of things to hospital care besides improper ER visits. Patients should be taken care of properly.

reply posted on 21-8-2009 @ 04:20 PM by TheRedneck

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

Sorry to list this stuff...but I was challenged.

Don't be sorry. All that you listed are worthwhile, sensible charities and well worth speaking out in favor of. You see, I do things like this as well.

Where I believe we differ, and the point I am trying to get across to you, is that for a charity to have any meaning, it must be voluntary. A nationalized healthcare system is not voluntary, and therefore is not charity. It might be worthwhile, but in order for me to believe it is, it will need to address more than how much money the insurance companies can get away with charging and how much the government can garnish my wages to pay for the excessive use of a service by others.

I want to see some definite guarantees that people will be able to use the system in an emergency, without obtaining some government or insurer approval or waiting an inordinate length of time. I want to see a system that discourages abuse while encouraging use. I want to see a system that addresses out-of-control costs. I want to see a system that makes being a doctor an attractive option for those who have the aptitude for it, but an unattractive option for others. I want to see good doctors rewarded and poor doctors ushered out of the system.

Not one of these are being addressed in any of the manifestations now moving through Congress.

Can we agree that the USA has problems in the medical profession, but that these problems run far deeper than just needing a law that everyone has to buy insurance at whatever rate the insurance companies want to charge?

Or would that make us both creeps?

TheRedneck

reply posted on 21-8-2009 @ 04:27 PM by TheRedneck

reply to post by wayno

Well, hello again wayno. Long time no debate!

I don't think there is another country out there that encourages the excesses that America does.

You have hit on several of the real problems we have. Why is it that we have laws against advertising tobacco on TV, but pharmaceutical companies can peddle their poison freely? Why is it that these magical pills cost multiples of what they cost in other countries? Why is it that medical attention can be frivolously wasted on some, even on those who cannot pay, but needed treatment can be denied to others, even including those who can pay?

We have many problems, and none of them can be fixed by insurance. They can only be fixed by a system that will not allow such widespread abuse as we have now.

Show me such a proposal, and you (and Johnny) will have a seriously loud-mouthed ally to get it passed!

TheRedneck

reply posted on 22-8-2009 @ 08:05 AM by wayno

The devil is always in the details isn't it. I don't know the details of whats being proposed down there. I would suspect that insurance company lobbyists, and maybe some doctor's lobbyists and the drug company lobbyists are all going to have their personal interests addressed, while the legitimate concerns you raise will be ignored.
Good luck to ya!

reply posted on 23-8-2009 @ 11:51 AM by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
Where I believe we differ, and the point I am trying to get across to you, is that for a charity to have any meaning, it must be voluntary. A nationalized healthcare system is not voluntary, and therefore is not charity.

We don't consider it as such...we consider it a right, plain and simple. You guys don't. That's your call.

I want to see some definite guarantees that people will be able to use the system in an emergency, without obtaining some government or insurer approval or waiting an inordinate length of time. I want to see a system that discourages abuse while encouraging use. I want to see a system that addresses out-of-control costs. I want to see a system that makes being a doctor an attractive option for those who have the aptitude for it, but an unattractive option for others. I want to see good doctors rewarded and poor doctors ushered out of the system.
Can we agree that the USA has problems in the medical profession, but that these problems run far deeper than just needing a law that everyone has to buy insurance at whatever rate the insurance companies want to charge?

Or would that make us both creeps? TheRedneck

My comments in this thread have been to address the issues of the OP, who is being left behind by the system. My thought is that it is abysmal. I've argued the strengths (with inherent weaknesses as well) of our system in other places. I agree with your assessment that the problems you face are deep, but I don't see them as insurmountable. Problem is that it has become an issue of fighting the last election. If it were regarded as a right...then it wouldn't be the hill to take Obama on.

[edit on 23-8-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]

reply posted on 23-8-2009 @ 04:21 PM by MrDesolate

Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that the major problem with health care in the US today is the insurance companies? They're the tail that wags the dog. Almost every medical decision boils down to, "do you have insurance?" And "What kind of coverage? Will it pay for abc or xyz?"

Doctors and hospitals practice defensive medicine to keep from being sued and an increase in their malpractice insurance.

Everything from the ponderous paperwork to the ridiculous wait to have a claim paid is driven by the insurance companies. The practice of medicine in this country has become more about generating profits for the insurance industry than making people well.

And who's screaming the loudest, or at least behind the ones screaming the loudest, about proposed changes?

We need tort reform, quit tying health insurance to employment, and some serious change in the health insurance industry overall.

reply posted on 23-8-2009 @ 04:27 PM by ravenshadow13

reply to post by MrDesolate

Actually I was recently in the ER in two different hospitals for two days and they treated me with a very specialized procedure before they knew if insurance would cover it. It still might not, we don't know yet.

But yes they asked if I had insurance. No, they didn't know if insurance would cover it but they did it anyway.

reply posted on 23-8-2009 @ 04:35 PM by catamaran

Ravenshadow, may I ask you a question? Were you in two different hospital emergency rooms for two days at each hospital, or one day at one hospital and the other day at the other? I know it must look like I am nitpicking as the issue of your post was procedure being done without knowing if your insurance covered that treatment.

reply posted on 23-8-2009 @ 04:41 PM by ravenshadow13

reply to post by catamaran

I was in one hospital for about 6 hours before being transferred. At the first hospital I had tests done but no procedures. Results were sent to the hospital I was transferred to and I stayed there for maybe about 12 hours? So not quite two days, but a long time. I then went to my PCP the next day, and a neurologist later in the week.

My insurance probably will cover it, even though it may have turned out to be an unnecessary treatment, it was risk prevention. No diagnostic test to check for the condition, and inaction (if I had the condition) would have resulted in permanent paralysis or death. I still probably never had the condition but symptoms matched, so they overtreated me.

Edit- I was treated excellently at the ER but they had gotten a heads up from an organization that I was going to be arriving. There was not one person waiting in the first ER. The second, I dunno, they rolled me in. It wasn't completely overcrowded or anything, all the doctors and staff were helpful and nice. There were only a couple people in each ER. They had no trouble getting paramedics to transfer me, or anything like that. When I got breakfast at the second hospital in the middle of the day it took hardly any time to get to me... everything came up fast that was requested.

So, I dunno, I suppose some ERs are more crowded and it depends on the day but I had no problems at all.

[edit on 8/23/2009 by ravenshadow13]

reply posted on 23-8-2009 @ 06:28 PM by TheRedneck

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

We don't consider it as such...we consider it a right, plain and simple. You guys don't. That's your call.

You keep saying "That's your call", but you keep arguing for this "right" in the USA.

My comments in this thread have been to address the issues of the OP, who is being left behind by the system. My thought is that it is abysmal.

It is indeed a tragedy when someone is left behind by the system. But how was he left behind?

He was admitted to the ER without insurance.
He received a consultation with not one, but two doctors, at no up front cost to him.
Both doctors verified he was not in immediate danger.
All this happened at the most expensive facility available - the hospital ER.
Except for the specter of cancer, which has not been diagnosed, his problem does not appear to be acutely serious (based on a Google search, of course).
There are low-cost clinics available to him to continue treatment if he chooses.
He can now rest assured that his credit is intact and he cannot be dunned as long as he pays a minimal amount (I think it is $10 per week?) toward his bill, regardless of how high it is.
If he cannot or will not pay that, it is likely he will never pay a dime for that treatment, although his credit may be damaged for non-payment.

We do have protections built into the system, but these protections are simply being overwhelmed by prices, which are being artificially raised by... wait for it... insurance companies! The bill you are so in favor of does little more than make it illegal to not pay these same insurance companies.

Now seeing as the OP cannot afford health insurance now, exactly how is forcing him to buy it going to help?

I've argued the strengths (with inherent weaknesses as well) of our system in other places. I agree with your assessment that the problems you face are deep, but I don't see them as insurmountable.

Neither do I, and I don't debate the Canadian health care system because I don't know enough about it. Apparently you love it; if that is the case, then I am glad for you.

No one in this country is trying to pass anything like your system, based on the precious little I know of it.

Problem is that it has become an issue of fighting the last election. If it were regarded as a right...then it wouldn't be the hill to take Obama on.

Ummm...

... you are aware I voted for Obama in the last election, right? So I am against anything done by the man, but I voted for him? Is it even possible that he might just have a bad idea?

Methinks you just jammed your foot into your mouth up to the hip socket.

TheRedneck

reply posted on 23-8-2009 @ 09:24 PM by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

We don't consider it as such...we consider it a right, plain and simple. You guys don't. That's your call.

You keep saying "That's your call", but you keep arguing for this "right" in the USA.

No...it's indeed your call. I just don't understand leaving a fellow citizen behind on this count.

It is indeed a tragedy when someone is left behind by the system. ...The bill you are so in favor of does little more than make it illegal to not pay these same insurance companies.

Who says I favour the bill...things simply don't work that way here, so it's out of my frame of reference. Here it's a right...can't imagine it any other way.

I don't debate the Canadian health care system because I don't know enough about it. Apparently you love it; if that is the case, then I am glad for you.

No one in this country is trying to pass anything like your system, based on the precious little I know of it.

It's not perfect, but yah...we like it. And I say, it's your call.

Problem is that it has become an issue of fighting the last election. If it were regarded as a right...then it wouldn't be the hill to take Obama on.

Ummm... ... you are aware I voted for Obama in the last election, right? So I am against anything done by the man, but I voted for him? Is it even possible that he might just have a bad idea?

Methinks you just jammed your foot into your mouth up to the hip socket.

TheRedneck

Nah, I don't think so. The bile and lies that have been generated by this debate have been aimed at the Obama administration, The GOP has made it plain that this is the hill on which he is to die....you know, figuratively speaking, of course. If the issue were about raisins in apple pie, they'd be talking about 'death grapes'...doesn't matter.

If you voted for him, fine. But if there weren't a very powerful lobby putting taint on the project and doubt in your mind...perhaps you wouldn't be so down on it. I humbly suggest.

Ultimately, once again, it's your call...just don't ask me to understand your choice. Fair?

[edit on 23-8-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]

reply posted on 23-8-2009 @ 09:42 PM by TheRedneck

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

Ultimately, once again, it's your call...just don't ask me to understand your choice. Fair?

Fair. I just want you to understand that I am not against this bill because someone said I should be. I have actually read part of it already and plan on reading the rest of it as time allows. So far, I have found plenty in it that makes me disagree with it.

It seems you have this view of the US as a bunch of uninformed people who simply listen to whoever screams the loudest. I want to assure you that is not the case. We have our idiots, sure, but I could stand on any street corner in New York, Chicago, Houston, LA, Ontario, or Quebec (assuming I spoke French, which thankfully I don't. Ever hear a Southerner trying to speak French?

) and find plenty of people who didn't know anything and didn't care to.

We are a nation of differing peoples and differing ideals, and one that has our hands full right now with an out-or-control government and a financial crisis to boot. To be fair, we must have aplan that includes the concerns of everyone, not just one group, and one that doesn't further cost us more than we have.

It's been a pleasure speaking with you, Johnny.

TheRedneck

reply posted on 24-8-2009 @ 08:12 AM by MrDesolate

reply to post by ravenshadow13

I'm glad to hear that. It isn't like medical personnel are unfeeling drones and I believe in the overwhelming majority of cases it's their intent to do the right thing medically. But they're typically working at cross purposes with the insurance companies.

They don't always get paid by everyone they treat. And that's a big reason hospital care can be so expensive. Somebody has to pay for it. And now you know why you're billed $20 for a Tylenol in the hospital. They have to make it up somewhere when you have a segment of the population with no insurance that treats the ER like it's their personal family physician.

reply posted on 24-8-2009 @ 08:35 AM by pavil

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by llpoolej

You just may live in a fortunate area.

Here? I wait 3 weeks just for my GP. 3 months to see my orthopod.

I had a friend who was nearly killed waiting for critical heart surgery because he waited SIX months because it was postponed three times.

When he finally went to surgery, and if it had been 2 more weeks he would of died. (defect)

Our ER waits are usualy 4-7 hours.

Don't know where you live, but I would get a new GP if he can't fit you in his schedule in a decent time frame. I routinely set up appointments for my kids with their main Doctor and specialists and usually get them within a week.

For the heart surgery, there is probably more to the story, blood work before the scheduled surgery might have postponed it. One of my clients who is on coumadin had to wait multiple times for their surgery or else there would have been major complications due to the level of coumadin.

I have had my friend go in for a normal checkup and have stents put in that same day cause they discovered the need.

As for the ER do you mean you don't see anyone for 4 to 7 hours? My son injured his eye and we had to go to an ER in another State, as we were traveling. He was seen within an hour by the ER Doctor, had some tests run. After a wait, he was then seen by the eye specialist at the hospital, had more detailed eye exams and tests with him and we were on our way in about 4 1/2 hours total. Oh, BTW they didn't ask us for insurance or money up front, they just billed us and we billed it through our insurance. The whole bill was about $726, which for saving my son's eyesight, was a bargain.

reply posted on 24-8-2009 @ 08:54 AM by pavil

Originally posted by MrDesolate
Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that the major problem with health care in the US today is the insurance companies? They're the tail that wags the dog. Almost every medical decision boils down to, "do you have insurance?" And "What kind of coverage? Will it pay for abc or xyz?"

I think it is up to the consumer to KNOW THEIR INSURANCE POLICY. Yeah, it's not fun to read, but you need to know it. Do you go to the mechanic for warranty work and not asked if it is covered or get the home repair without first finding out if your policy covers that? All insurances work the same.

We took our kids for their annual checkups and they got all their normal stuff done. We asked ahead of time "is there anything that won't be covered"? The staff said everything would be. I then told them that in my paperwork it says that ear and eye exams will only be covered when done by those specialists, not a GP and that a certain immunization shot was only covered at 25%. I told her not to do the ear and eye exams, I would set up separate exams and I would like that shot to not be administered and I would get it Free from the County later. She was surprised that I told her those things. If I had just believed the staff person, I would have had an out of pocket cost for the ear and eye exams of $210 (3 kids @$35/exam) and $225 for the shot ($75/kid).

Moral of the story, yes it was a little more difficult, but knowing what was covered saved me almost $500 and my kid's health wasn't affected. One should REALLY know what the coverage on your prescriptions is and ALWAYS ask your Doctor and Pharmacists for Generics whenever possible.

It is kinda weird that the insurance would only cover a normal immunization shot at only 25%, you'd think it would be to their advantage to make sure everyone was immunized from that illness, as the cost of actually treating the illness would cost the insurance company far more. Go figure.

reply posted on 24-8-2009 @ 09:00 AM by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by pavil

It is kinda weird that the insurance would only cover a normal immunization shot at only 25%, you'd think it would be to their advantage to make sure everyone was immunized from that illness, as the cost of actually treating the illness would cost the insurance company far more. Go figure.

Well, the same thought could be applied for health care in general. In a society where people decide to ride out an illness because of cost, instead of seeking treatment at an early stage...your final costs are going to greatly outweigh your initial ones if you bet wrong.

Kinda like my supplemental health care not paying for smoking cessation therapies...but they'd be on the hook for cancer drugs.

A quick edit to say, too, that from the perspective of one in a national health care plan, some of the responses here sure look like 'blame the victim'.

It's just that foreign in concept.

[edit on 24-8-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]

reply posted on 24-8-2009 @ 06:42 PM by Blue Alice

Does anyone know if how hard it is to get medical care if you want to pay for it yourself? What if you don't have insurance but do have money to pay for your treatment? I suppose you would have to prove it.

Considering the things I have heard about modern medicine since joining this board, maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing to have absurd waiting times for treatment from specialists. In the US, your kid gets cancer and you want to try alternative-nutrition-sort-of-stuff you will have your kid taken away.

If you had to go on a waiting list to get chemo, then you could spend six months feeding him hempseed or injecting him with ozone and see if that works.

reply posted on 25-8-2009 @ 10:57 AM by MrDesolate

Originally posted by Blue Alice
If you had to go on a waiting list to get chemo, then you could spend six months feeding him hempseed or injecting him with ozone and see if that works.

That's one way of looking at it. When life hands you crap, make crapenade.

reply posted on 25-8-2009 @ 11:45 AM by pavil

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Kinda like my supplemental health care not paying for smoking cessation therapies...but they'd be on the hook for cancer drugs.

Exactly, my health insurance wouldn't pay for my vasctomey when it would shell out tons more for a birth. I had to pay $700 for it. But it would have paid for my wife getting her tubes tied.

Just seems counterintuitive to me.

reply posted on 25-8-2009 @ 11:52 AM by pavil

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Well, the same thought could be applied for health care in general. In a society where people decide to ride out an illness because of cost, instead of seeking treatment at an early stage...your final costs are going to greatly outweigh your initial ones if you bet wrong.

Yes but screening everyone for the same illnesses nets no real savings and costs slightly more overall, this according to the GAO report, if memory serves me right. No link, but you can look it up if you doubt.

There will be no magic bullets for healthcare till will start eliminating diseases and focus more on healthy habits. Easier said than done however.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^