"jps" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:41:21 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:18:19 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:33:35 -0500, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:43:18 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:12:38 -0500, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

The US could institute the most socialized health care system in
the
world and it would not prevent injuries inflicted by one person on
another, not would it change the survival rate. There is only so
much
a
Doctor can do to save a life.
It's selective editing on the Assistant Paste Eater's part.

Trauma treatment does not rely on "insurance" for treatment. ER
Trauma centers only treat and stabilize. Once the patient is
stable
enough to further testing and treatment, they are moved to the
appropriate facility or in-hospital ward.

What happens at that point may be due to insurance, but the initial
ER
treatment has nothing to do with stabilization and life saving.

DILDO:

Please pay attention. Among the things that happen is that people
with serious injuries go to the wrong hospitals and aren't admitted
because they don't have insurance.

If all were insured, the instances where people went to the nearest
ER
wouldn't have an impact on their survival rate.

Secondly, even if they do go to the ER with life threatening
circumstances, they may have other uknown medical conditions that
are
unrelated to the visit but impact the outcome. A situation brought
on
by the fact that they haven't been seen regularly by a primary care
physician

Hello? Are you listening?

What should we call your faction? DDD for deaf dumb and blind?

I have lived in several state and have have seen people admitted and
receive treatment at hospitals WITH NO INSURANCE. If you believe
people
in need of emergency medical care are turned away from a hospital you
must not live in the United States.

Indigent people become the ward of the township/county depending on
where you live. As wards of the township/county, the government
insures
they receive the proper treatment.

If you don't believe this look up the county, township or state laws
on
indigent care.

You have been listening to the obamodytes too long.

There are myriad private hospitals which will not admit patients
without insurance.

There are designated hospitals in every area of the country that are
public hospitals which are mandated to take anyone, no matter the
circumstances.

You need to brush up on your vast knowledge of hospitals and admitting
practices.

Secondly, most visits to the hospital aren't by indigants. They're
working and working poor who do not have coverage.

You need to take a wake up pill or maybe smell the coffee?

If they have an emergency room they will treat you insured or not. Law
requires stabilization. They will ship you off to the county hospital
at
first chance, but if they refuse to treat you they will be a broke and
non
accredited hospital.

Sounds like it could be a very arbitray judgement call on behalf of
the admitting staff. If the ER is flooded and at capacity, what
happens to those who wait to be treated?

Why are the compiled numbers showing the results? Is this some kind
of ruse Harvard Research is foisting on the public?

"The reason for this much higher risk of death isn't immediately
clear. The researchers point out that, while federal law requires
that emergency rooms provide care, the uninsured often have longer
waits in the ER, and sometimes have to go to various ERs to find one
that will treat them."

Is this a lie? A fabrication? A misrepresentation?

Because lots of the uninsured come in with mortal knife or gunshot wounds.
They all get treated at emergency. Some quicker than others, as they are
making a mess on the floor.

Yes, I'm sure you're right but the messy ones may not be the ones in
the most acute need.

If they all had insurance, the traffic would be more evenly dispersed
and maybe some of them would have primary care that'd keep 'em out of
the trauma centers...

Nope, they would still be getting shot and knifed. And how many actually
do not have insurance? If you are on welfare, the state pays for your
medical costs.

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:49:01 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:41:21 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:18:19 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:33:35 -0500, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:43:18 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:12:38 -0500, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

The US could institute the most socialized health care system in
the
world and it would not prevent injuries inflicted by one person on
another, not would it change the survival rate. There is only so
much
a
Doctor can do to save a life.
It's selective editing on the Assistant Paste Eater's part.

Trauma treatment does not rely on "insurance" for treatment. ER
Trauma centers only treat and stabilize. Once the patient is
stable
enough to further testing and treatment, they are moved to the
appropriate facility or in-hospital ward.

What happens at that point may be due to insurance, but the initial
ER
treatment has nothing to do with stabilization and life saving.

DILDO:

Please pay attention. Among the things that happen is that people
with serious injuries go to the wrong hospitals and aren't admitted
because they don't have insurance.

If all were insured, the instances where people went to the nearest
ER
wouldn't have an impact on their survival rate.

Secondly, even if they do go to the ER with life threatening
circumstances, they may have other uknown medical conditions that
are
unrelated to the visit but impact the outcome. A situation brought
on
by the fact that they haven't been seen regularly by a primary care
physician

Hello? Are you listening?

What should we call your faction? DDD for deaf dumb and blind?

I have lived in several state and have have seen people admitted and
receive treatment at hospitals WITH NO INSURANCE. If you believe
people
in need of emergency medical care are turned away from a hospital you
must not live in the United States.

Indigent people become the ward of the township/county depending on
where you live. As wards of the township/county, the government
insures
they receive the proper treatment.

If you don't believe this look up the county, township or state laws
on
indigent care.

You have been listening to the obamodytes too long.

There are myriad private hospitals which will not admit patients
without insurance.

There are designated hospitals in every area of the country that are
public hospitals which are mandated to take anyone, no matter the
circumstances.

You need to brush up on your vast knowledge of hospitals and admitting
practices.

Secondly, most visits to the hospital aren't by indigants. They're
working and working poor who do not have coverage.

You need to take a wake up pill or maybe smell the coffee?

If they have an emergency room they will treat you insured or not. Law
requires stabilization. They will ship you off to the county hospital
at
first chance, but if they refuse to treat you they will be a broke and
non
accredited hospital.

Sounds like it could be a very arbitray judgement call on behalf of
the admitting staff. If the ER is flooded and at capacity, what
happens to those who wait to be treated?

Why are the compiled numbers showing the results? Is this some kind
of ruse Harvard Research is foisting on the public?

"The reason for this much higher risk of death isn't immediately
clear. The researchers point out that, while federal law requires
that emergency rooms provide care, the uninsured often have longer
waits in the ER, and sometimes have to go to various ERs to find one
that will treat them."

Is this a lie? A fabrication? A misrepresentation?

Because lots of the uninsured come in with mortal knife or gunshot wounds.
They all get treated at emergency. Some quicker than others, as they are
making a mess on the floor.

Yes, I'm sure you're right but the messy ones may not be the ones in
the most acute need.

If they all had insurance, the traffic would be more evenly dispersed
and maybe some of them would have primary care that'd keep 'em out of
the trauma centers...

Nope, they would still be getting shot and knifed. And how many actually
do not have insurance? If you are on welfare, the state pays for your
medical costs.

That's completely besides the point and you know it. If the same
number were shot and stabbed, whether they be perps or innocent
victims, there'd be less congestion at the county trauma centers if
insured were treated at every hospital with an ER.

Most people who go to the ER are not indigent. This has been repeated
any number of times in the stats but, evidently, your case is wearing
so thin you're having to repeat erroneous information.

Try again if you must or just watch some television. For you, it's
time better spent.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:18:12 -0800, jps wrote:

If they all had insurance, the traffic would be more evenly dispersed
and maybe some of them would have primary care that'd keep 'em out of
the trauma centers...

Nope, they would still be getting shot and knifed. And how many
actually
do not have insurance? If you are on welfare, the state pays for your
medical costs.

That's completely besides the point and you know it. If the same
number were shot and stabbed, whether they be perps or innocent
victims, there'd be less congestion at the county trauma centers if
insured were treated at every hospital with an ER.

Most people who go to the ER are not indigent. This has been repeated
any number of times in the stats but, evidently, your case is wearing
so thin you're having to repeat erroneous information.

Try again if you must or just watch some television. For you, it's
time better spent.


I still hate to trust a statistic like this without a little more
information about where the data came from, what was the most
prevalent causes of death and things like that.
Bad things tend to happen to poor people more than the more affluent.



80%+ who have no health ins. are working and above the poverty line. This
has been known for quite some time.


--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:38:01 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:18:12 -0800, jps wrote:

If they all had insurance, the traffic would be more evenly dispersed
and maybe some of them would have primary care that'd keep 'em out of
the trauma centers...

Nope, they would still be getting shot and knifed. And how many
actually
do not have insurance? If you are on welfare, the state pays for your
medical costs.

That's completely besides the point and you know it. If the same
number were shot and stabbed, whether they be perps or innocent
victims, there'd be less congestion at the county trauma centers if
insured were treated at every hospital with an ER.

Most people who go to the ER are not indigent. This has been repeated
any number of times in the stats but, evidently, your case is wearing
so thin you're having to repeat erroneous information.

Try again if you must or just watch some television. For you, it's
time better spent.


I still hate to trust a statistic like this without a little more
information about where the data came from, what was the most
prevalent causes of death and things like that.
Bad things tend to happen to poor people more than the more affluent.



80%+ who have no health ins. are working and above the poverty line. This
has been known for quite some time.

It still doesn't answer my question. Who dies in the ER's they polled
and what was the cause of death?
If these were inner city public hospitals I am sure violence and drugs
are the major cause of death in the ER.
Are they saying, if you have insurance they take you upstairs to die?
I am just not sure someone was not cherry picking data to advance an
agenda.

If you are saying gangsters, hookers and drug addicts have a horrible
benefit plan, I agree. Most of their victims do too.


I'm not sure what you're asking... are you seriously asking if most of the
ER patients are criminals? Few would have insurance, but I don't see what
difference that would make.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:30:12 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:00:35 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I still hate to trust a statistic like this without a little more
information about where the data came from, what was the most
prevalent causes of death and things like that.
Bad things tend to happen to poor people more than the more affluent.



80%+ who have no health ins. are working and above the poverty line. This
has been known for quite some time.

It still doesn't answer my question. Who dies in the ER's they polled
and what was the cause of death?
If these were inner city public hospitals I am sure violence and drugs
are the major cause of death in the ER.
Are they saying, if you have insurance they take you upstairs to die?
I am just not sure someone was not cherry picking data to advance an
agenda.

If you are saying gangsters, hookers and drug addicts have a horrible
benefit plan, I agree. Most of their victims do too.


I'm not sure what you're asking... are you seriously asking if most of the
ER patients are criminals? Few would have insurance, but I don't see what
difference that would make.

I am just curious about all the dueling statistics I hear.
They said a week or so ago that 47000 people without insurance die
every year, Sarah Brady says 43,000 people are shot every year, how
many of those overlap? Toss in the ODs and it is easy to see why I may
be skeptical of the statistics as any kind of valid barometer.
I did this kind of work at IBM, trying to figure out why the reports
we were running our business with did not match the reality and most
of the time it was either that they were cherry picking the data or
that the input data itself was corrupt in order to make a short term
"number" look good.
In the case of ER stats, I would not be shocked to see them diddling
the inputted data to get their daily and monthly reports and payments
on track.

I think we should just assume that everyone who's shot or stabbed
doesn't have insurance.

Ft. Hood, VA Tech, DC Sniper, etc. Those damend uninsured victims!

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:28:03 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:32:03 -0800, jps wrote:

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:30:12 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:00:35 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I still hate to trust a statistic like this without a little more
information about where the data came from, what was the most
prevalent causes of death and things like that.
Bad things tend to happen to poor people more than the more affluent.



80%+ who have no health ins. are working and above the poverty line. This
has been known for quite some time.

It still doesn't answer my question. Who dies in the ER's they polled
and what was the cause of death?
If these were inner city public hospitals I am sure violence and drugs
are the major cause of death in the ER.
Are they saying, if you have insurance they take you upstairs to die?
I am just not sure someone was not cherry picking data to advance an
agenda.

If you are saying gangsters, hookers and drug addicts have a horrible
benefit plan, I agree. Most of their victims do too.


I'm not sure what you're asking... are you seriously asking if most of the
ER patients are criminals? Few would have insurance, but I don't see what
difference that would make.

I am just curious about all the dueling statistics I hear.
They said a week or so ago that 47000 people without insurance die
every year, Sarah Brady says 43,000 people are shot every year, how
many of those overlap? Toss in the ODs and it is easy to see why I may
be skeptical of the statistics as any kind of valid barometer.
I did this kind of work at IBM, trying to figure out why the reports
we were running our business with did not match the reality and most
of the time it was either that they were cherry picking the data or
that the input data itself was corrupt in order to make a short term
"number" look good.
In the case of ER stats, I would not be shocked to see them diddling
the inputted data to get their daily and monthly reports and payments
on track.

I think we should just assume that everyone who's shot or stabbed
doesn't have insurance.

Ft. Hood, VA Tech, DC Sniper, etc. Those damend uninsured victims!


You are cherry picking.

Who are the majority of violent crime victims? ,,, Poor people.
Occasionally you have a Kennedy killing someone but usually it is
inner city folks or rednecks.

Okay but it doesn't mean that whomever is getting shot is a perp.