|
Emergency room fatalities 80% higher for uninsured
The obvious conclusion is that they show up in the emergency room long after they should have seen a primary care physician... An analysis of 687,091 patients who visited trauma centers nationwide from 2002 to 2006 found that the odds of dying from injuries were almost twice as high for the uninsured than for patients with private insurance, researchers reported in Archives of Surgery. Trauma physicians said they were surprised by the findings, even though a slew of studies had previously documented the ill effects of going without health coverage. Uninsured patients are less likely to be screened for certain cancers or to be admitted to specialty hospitals for procedures such as heart bypass surgery. Overall, about 18,000 deaths each year have been traced to a lack of health insurance.... The research team from Harvard University and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston used information from 1,154 U.S. hospitals that contribute to the National Trauma Data Bank. The team found that patients enrolled in commercial health plans, health maintenance organizations or Medicaid had an equal risk of death from traumatic injuries when the patients' age, gender, race and severity of injury were taken into account. The risk of death was 56% higher for patients covered by Medicare, perhaps because the government health plan includes many people with long-term disabilities, said Dr. Heather Rosen, who led the study while she was a research fellow at Harvard Medical School. The risk of death was 80% higher for patients without any insurance, the report said. |
Emergency room fatalities 80% higher for uninsured
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:14:06 -0800, jps wrote:
The obvious conclusion is that they show up in the emergency room long after they should have seen a primary care physician... An analysis of 687,091 patients who visited trauma centers nationwide from 2002 to 2006 found that the odds of dying from injuries were almost twice as high for the uninsured than for patients with private insurance, researchers reported in Archives of Surgery. Trauma physicians said they were surprised by the findings, even though a slew of studies had previously documented the ill effects of going without health coverage. Uninsured patients are less likely to be screened for certain cancers or to be admitted to specialty hospitals for procedures such as heart bypass surgery. Overall, about 18,000 deaths each year have been traced to a lack of health insurance.... The research team from Harvard University and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston used information from 1,154 U.S. hospitals that contribute to the National Trauma Data Bank. The team found that patients enrolled in commercial health plans, health maintenance organizations or Medicaid had an equal risk of death from traumatic injuries when the patients' age, gender, race and severity of injury were taken into account. The risk of death was 56% higher for patients covered by Medicare, perhaps because the government health plan includes many people with long-term disabilities, said Dr. Heather Rosen, who led the study while she was a research fellow at Harvard Medical School. The risk of death was 80% higher for patients without any insurance, the report said. My assumption was only partially right. After further reading, it's revealed that uninsured, among other factors, wait longer to be seen, are more likely to be victims or participants in/of violent crime, or aren't afforded more expensive diagnostic procedures. Don't know how badly I feel for the perps but their victims shouldn't suffer... 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. They are also likely to receive fewer services, especially expensive ones like MRI scans. They also are likely to have more untreated underlying condidtions that compromise their overall health. Additionally, the demographics of the uninsured and traumatic injuries is a factor; "gunshot and stabbing victims -- frequently younger people involved in crime" are more likely to die and more likely to be uninsured than other trauma patients. Bottom line, being uninsured is potentially deadly. The moral and financial costs to the country are unacceptable, and any member of Congress who obstructs this effort to reform the system will carry the responsibilty of those deaths. |
Emergency room fatalities 80% higher for uninsured
"jps" wrote in message
... The obvious conclusion is that they show up in the emergency room long after they should have seen a primary care physician... An analysis of 687,091 patients who visited trauma centers nationwide from 2002 to 2006 found that the odds of dying from injuries were almost twice as high for the uninsured than for patients with private insurance, researchers reported in Archives of Surgery. Trauma physicians said they were surprised by the findings, even though a slew of studies had previously documented the ill effects of going without health coverage. Uninsured patients are less likely to be screened for certain cancers or to be admitted to specialty hospitals for procedures such as heart bypass surgery. Overall, about 18,000 deaths each year have been traced to a lack of health insurance.... The research team from Harvard University and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston used information from 1,154 U.S. hospitals that contribute to the National Trauma Data Bank. The team found that patients enrolled in commercial health plans, health maintenance organizations or Medicaid had an equal risk of death from traumatic injuries when the patients' age, gender, race and severity of injury were taken into account. The risk of death was 56% higher for patients covered by Medicare, perhaps because the government health plan includes many people with long-term disabilities, said Dr. Heather Rosen, who led the study while she was a research fellow at Harvard Medical School. The risk of death was 80% higher for patients without any insurance, the report said. And, something like 80% of the uninsured are working full time and are not considered poor. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Emergency room fatalities 80% higher for uninsured
jps wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:14:06 -0800, jps wrote: The obvious conclusion is that they show up in the emergency room long after they should have seen a primary care physician... An analysis of 687,091 patients who visited trauma centers nationwide from 2002 to 2006 found that the odds of dying from injuries were almost twice as high for the uninsured than for patients with private insurance, researchers reported in Archives of Surgery. Trauma physicians said they were surprised by the findings, even though a slew of studies had previously documented the ill effects of going without health coverage. Uninsured patients are less likely to be screened for certain cancers or to be admitted to specialty hospitals for procedures such as heart bypass surgery. Overall, about 18,000 deaths each year have been traced to a lack of health insurance.... The research team from Harvard University and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston used information from 1,154 U.S. hospitals that contribute to the National Trauma Data Bank. The team found that patients enrolled in commercial health plans, health maintenance organizations or Medicaid had an equal risk of death from traumatic injuries when the patients' age, gender, race and severity of injury were taken into account. The risk of death was 56% higher for patients covered by Medicare, perhaps because the government health plan includes many people with long-term disabilities, said Dr. Heather Rosen, who led the study while she was a research fellow at Harvard Medical School. The risk of death was 80% higher for patients without any insurance, the report said. My assumption was only partially right. After further reading, it's revealed that uninsured, among other factors, wait longer to be seen, are more likely to be victims or participants in/of violent crime, or aren't afforded more expensive diagnostic procedures. Don't know how badly I feel for the perps but their victims shouldn't suffer... 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. They are also likely to receive fewer services, especially expensive ones like MRI scans. They also are likely to have more untreated underlying condidtions that compromise their overall health. Additionally, the demographics of the uninsured and traumatic injuries is a factor; "gunshot and stabbing victims -- frequently younger people involved in crime" are more likely to die and more likely to be uninsured than other trauma patients. Bottom line, being uninsured is potentially deadly. The moral and financial costs to the country are unacceptable, and any member of Congress who obstructs this effort to reform the system will carry the responsibilty of those deaths. I think you answer the question in in the last couple of lines of the first paragraph. It is much easier to survive a finger cut on a saw than it is to survive a gunshot, beating, or stabbing. In the central part of the city where I living hardly a day goes by without someone in the news with gunshot, beating, or stabbing. 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. |
Emergency room fatalities 80% higher for uninsured
"Keith Nuttle" wrote in message
... jps wrote: On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:14:06 -0800, jps wrote: The obvious conclusion is that they show up in the emergency room long after they should have seen a primary care physician... An analysis of 687,091 patients who visited trauma centers nationwide from 2002 to 2006 found that the odds of dying from injuries were almost twice as high for the uninsured than for patients with private insurance, researchers reported in Archives of Surgery. Trauma physicians said they were surprised by the findings, even though a slew of studies had previously documented the ill effects of going without health coverage. Uninsured patients are less likely to be screened for certain cancers or to be admitted to specialty hospitals for procedures such as heart bypass surgery. Overall, about 18,000 deaths each year have been traced to a lack of health insurance.... The research team from Harvard University and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston used information from 1,154 U.S. hospitals that contribute to the National Trauma Data Bank. The team found that patients enrolled in commercial health plans, health maintenance organizations or Medicaid had an equal risk of death from traumatic injuries when the patients' age, gender, race and severity of injury were taken into account. The risk of death was 56% higher for patients covered by Medicare, perhaps because the government health plan includes many people with long-term disabilities, said Dr. Heather Rosen, who led the study while she was a research fellow at Harvard Medical School. The risk of death was 80% higher for patients without any insurance, the report said. My assumption was only partially right. After further reading, it's revealed that uninsured, among other factors, wait longer to be seen, are more likely to be victims or participants in/of violent crime, or aren't afforded more expensive diagnostic procedures. Don't know how badly I feel for the perps but their victims shouldn't suffer... 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. They are also likely to receive fewer services, especially expensive ones like MRI scans. They also are likely to have more untreated underlying condidtions that compromise their overall health. Additionally, the demographics of the uninsured and traumatic injuries is a factor; "gunshot and stabbing victims -- frequently younger people involved in crime" are more likely to die and more likely to be uninsured than other trauma patients. Bottom line, being uninsured is potentially deadly. The moral and financial costs to the country are unacceptable, and any member of Congress who obstructs this effort to reform the system will carry the responsibilty of those deaths. I think you answer the question in in the last couple of lines of the first paragraph. It is much easier to survive a finger cut on a saw than it is to survive a gunshot, beating, or stabbing. In the central part of the city where I living hardly a day goes by without someone in the news with gunshot, beating, or stabbing. Which has nothing to do with the real issue of the uninsured, the vast majority of whom (80%) are employed and not considered poor. 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. And, there's only so much a thinking person can do to help someone who is not thinking. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Emergency room fatalities 80% higher for uninsured
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:12:38 -0500, Keith Nuttle
wrote: jps wrote: On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:14:06 -0800, jps wrote: The obvious conclusion is that they show up in the emergency room long after they should have seen a primary care physician... An analysis of 687,091 patients who visited trauma centers nationwide from 2002 to 2006 found that the odds of dying from injuries were almost twice as high for the uninsured than for patients with private insurance, researchers reported in Archives of Surgery. Trauma physicians said they were surprised by the findings, even though a slew of studies had previously documented the ill effects of going without health coverage. Uninsured patients are less likely to be screened for certain cancers or to be admitted to specialty hospitals for procedures such as heart bypass surgery. Overall, about 18,000 deaths each year have been traced to a lack of health insurance.... The research team from Harvard University and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston used information from 1,154 U.S. hospitals that contribute to the National Trauma Data Bank. The team found that patients enrolled in commercial health plans, health maintenance organizations or Medicaid had an equal risk of death from traumatic injuries when the patients' age, gender, race and severity of injury were taken into account. The risk of death was 56% higher for patients covered by Medicare, perhaps because the government health plan includes many people with long-term disabilities, said Dr. Heather Rosen, who led the study while she was a research fellow at Harvard Medical School. The risk of death was 80% higher for patients without any insurance, the report said. My assumption was only partially right. After further reading, it's revealed that uninsured, among other factors, wait longer to be seen, are more likely to be victims or participants in/of violent crime, or aren't afforded more expensive diagnostic procedures. Don't know how badly I feel for the perps but their victims shouldn't suffer... 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. They are also likely to receive fewer services, especially expensive ones like MRI scans. They also are likely to have more untreated underlying condidtions that compromise their overall health. Additionally, the demographics of the uninsured and traumatic injuries is a factor; "gunshot and stabbing victims -- frequently younger people involved in crime" are more likely to die and more likely to be uninsured than other trauma patients. Bottom line, being uninsured is potentially deadly. The moral and financial costs to the country are unacceptable, and any member of Congress who obstructs this effort to reform the system will carry the responsibilty of those deaths. I think you answer the question in in the last couple of lines of the first paragraph. It is much easier to survive a finger cut on a saw than it is to survive a gunshot, beating, or stabbing. In the central part of the city where I living hardly a day goes by without someone in the news with gunshot, beating, or stabbing. 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. I'd flip that on its head. If those victims were covered by insurance, they may get the services that would save their lives or they'd at least know that the emergency room they went to would have to admit them. Your supposition assumes the worst scenario. Welfare mom drivin' a Cadillac and poppin' babies to increase her montly payments. |
Emergency room fatalities 80% higher for uninsured
nom=de=plume wrote:
And, there's only so much a thinking person can do to help someone who is not thinking. um. what did you say? |
Emergency room fatalities 80% higher for uninsured
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:07:00 -0500, achmed wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote: And, there's only so much a thinking person can do to help someone who is not thinking. um. what did you say? Think 'vacuous'. -- John H |
Emergency room fatalities 80% higher for uninsured
"JustJohn H" wrote in message
... On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:07:00 -0500, achmed wrote: nom=de=plume wrote: And, there's only so much a thinking person can do to help someone who is not thinking. um. what did you say? Think 'vacuous'. -- John H See "not thinking" - John, achmed -- Nom=de=Plume |
Emergency room fatalities 80% higher for uninsured
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. |
Emergency room fatalities 80% higher for uninsured
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? |
Emergency room fatalities 80% higher for uninsured
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. |
Emergency room fatalities 80% higher for uninsured
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? |
Emergency room fatalities 80% higher for uninsured
"jps" wrote in message ... 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. |
Emergency room fatalities 80% higher for uninsured
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:18:19 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote: "jps" wrote in message .. . 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? |
Emergency room fatalities 80% higher for uninsured
"jps" wrote in message ... On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:18:19 -0800, "CalifBill" wrote: "jps" wrote in message . .. 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. |
Emergency room fatalities 80% higher for uninsured
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 ... 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... |
Emergency room fatalities 80% higher for uninsured
jps wrote:
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? I'm sure you are wrong. Can you name any? Rob |
Emergency room fatalities 80% higher for uninsured
"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. |
Emergency room fatalities 80% higher for uninsured
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. |
Emergency room fatalities 80% higher for uninsured
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 |
Emergency room fatalities 80% higher for uninsured
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 |
Emergency room fatalities 80% higher for uninsured
|
Emergency room fatalities 80% higher for uninsured
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:36:41 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: wrote in message .. . 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 believe the number is closer to 100K per year in the US. I'm not enough of a statistician to figure out who's got ins. and who doesn't. Most of the people who show up in ERs are employed, just as 80% who showed up in the recent free clinics were employed. I don't think any of them were shooting victims. Oh yes they were, every single one -- if you count tetanus and vaccinations. ;) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:52 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com