Dan wrote- >What we have now is this: the requirement to give medical care to people >without insurance is soft. If a hospital, for example, decides to not have >an emergency room, they can restrict input fairly effectively. But, once >someone is admitted, no procedure can be excluded because that patient >cannot pay for it.
My direct experience in this area is limited, but I recall that when I was in an accident and taken to the hospital there was a guard at the door to keep people unable to pay out of the hospital since it was a private hospital. (If someone was 'shot and dying', they would have to stabilize). Local hospitals have to allow people into the hospital, but I am not sure "how long" they have to treat. The "admitted" part might be the criteria to potentially keep treating since it indicates some level of potential involvement? Is that the "soft" part? >A more reasonable way of doing this is to include the cost of procedures in >the mix. Everyone can get basic solid care. But, the high cost care that >pushes the envelope has to be paid for, one way or another. Hospitals are >not required to give it. This is fairly consistent with the Aussie model. Ray, want to weigh in? >The car metaphor is that the present system is that the hospital can refuse >to let people have a Chevy. But, if they give them a car, they must be >willing to give a Caddy. Jeff and I agree, a system in which everyone gets >a Chevy but has to pay for an upgrade to a Caddy is far better. It would >cost less and provide better care. Dee _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
