On Apr 16, 1:50*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:16:17 -0700 (PDT), jamesgangnc





wrote:
Here's my question. *We all know that the present system can't go on
working. *We can't have 15% of the population not have some way to pay
for health care and at the same time pass laws that force hospitals to
care for them anyway. *That's like having a law that a restaurant has
to serve you even though you are obviously not going to pay. *Hey, you
could be starving. *Do both sides agree that what we have now isn't
going to go on working forever? *If so then at the end of the day
don't we really just have 2 options.

Option 1, figure out some way to get those people back into the system
with some minimal benefits as the rest of us.

Option 2, *no tickey, no laundry. *You can't pay the the hospital is
within it's rights to turn you away.

I'm not advocating one or the other with this post. *I'm just asking
at the 20,000 foot level is there a 3rd choice I'm missing?

Those people just got thrown back to the states in the Medicaid plan.
There was no federal money that went along with this (unless you are a
corn husker) . That is how this was "revenue neutral" for the feds. It
is the broke assed states who will be paying these bills. BTW there
are already plenty of hospitals and doctors who will not take Medicaid
patients unless they come in through the ER and even then, they just
stabilize and transport.
I know that a lot of hospitals simply don't have an ER, that
eliminates the problem.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sure, there are loopholes that some hospitals use. But eventually the
people end up getting treatment somewhere and can't pay for it.

So do you want # 1 or # 2? Or do you see a # 3 I've missed. And I
mean a #3 that isn't just a variation of 1 or 2.