(05-05-2015 04:42 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: But I find it interesting that you want to increase the supply of healthcare while the Republicans seem to want to do nothing to assist more people going to school beyond high school by opposing nearly every initiative from Obama to assist them to do so!
Rehashing this because I left out an important question...
Do you HONESTLY believe that Republicans don't want people getting educated beyond high school? If so, we can just stop talking right now. That's just silly. If instead you merely believe that Republicans have a different idea about how best to help people succeed and allocate 'limited' resources, then we can talk... but hyperbolic comments like these aren't conducive to that conversation.
(05-06-2015 09:01 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: What I said was in no way hyperbole dude. How many times has the Republican led house voted to repeal the ACA either in whole or in part? Repealing the ACA will in fact take health insurance away from millions.
That is no less hyperbole than the comments you argue against that the ACA took insurance away from OTHER millions. They are both equally true, and equally hyperbolic.
The TRUTH is that repealing the ACA wouldn't relieve the government from providing this years promised subsidies, nor would it relieve insurers from their obligations under the contracts they entered into with those millions. It would necessarily be replaced by something.... even if that something was merely Medicaid as before (if they did absolutely nothing).
I am 100% convinced, and so are you... which is what makes your comment hyperbole... that any bill that would ultimately pass to repeal the ACA would necessarily contain some sort of an alternative or at least an interim step until one were created.
You guys like to act as if the poor had no healthcare access before... and now that they have insurance, it seems that most of them are apparently accessing healthcare in EXACTLY the same way they did before.... so the ACA has (on the whole) changed almost nothing.
Yet despite the fact that it changes so little, AND we don't want it and neither do you, you guys seem to think that we can't live without it??
Talk about clinging to your guns and bibles.
(05-06-2015 10:26 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: I've been having to deal with this precise issue over the last couple of months (my brother is VERY sick) and I'm probably going to have to decide whether we call the ambulance or wait for 7 hours tomorrow. For people who are sick, if you come via ambulance, you wait a lot less.
Tom, that may be your opinion and perception, but it isn't based in fact.... because you don't know the facts. Your brother couldn't possibly present at both the front and back of the ED with the same symptoms and demonstrate your belief... so you are merely guessing at what is actually happening behind the doors, or what WOULD have happened had you presented differently.
The TRUTH is that hospital reimbursement is tied to D2D (door to doc) and acuity measures... and if you are stable and others aren't, you will wait regardless of how you presented... and if you are not, you will jump in front of those who are. It's not first come first serve at an ED, because that is not how they are measured or paid. People who present and are triaged with the sniffles or a rash or some other non-urgent care don't count in those measures. There are groups like Medicaid, The Joint Commission, The AHA and others who would AND COULD shut such an operation down if your opinion were remotely supported by the facts.
FTR, 6-7 hour wait anywhere near the city of Houston for someone who is truly sick is not in any way true. Now it's possible that your brother suffers from something for which there really isn't anything the ER can do for him in which case he WILL wait... but that happens regardless of which door he enters through. Whether that wait is 2 or 6 hours is a function of what else is going on and staffing, and not which door they came through. He waits because he is stable, even if he is sick. That's what ERs do. They stabilize you. If you are already stable, then you don't need to be in an ER. You need to be at home, in an assisted living center or in the Hospital... NOT the ER.
Take a look at this.
http://hospitals.texastribune.org/#list Maybe you just need to go to a different hospital. Even if you drove an hour, it would likely save you time.
The average time after entering the door before patients receive a diagnostic exam in Texas is 25 minutes. The National Average is 24. (Door to Doctor) The average time it takes to diagnose, address and send someone home is about 2 hours (Door to Discharge). Much of that time is spent doing paperwork and explaining your care at home. The average 'door to bed' for admitted patients is a little more than 4 hours. In addition to that same paperwork, the patients have to be accepted by an inpatient physician, and information and care plans must be exchanged... plus other authorizations.
Now, there is SOME truth to the idea that when you call an ambulance, you may be triaged sooner, but you are being triaged by a paramedic, not an NP or PA, much less an MD.... and I suspect you're completely ignoring the time it takes for you to call the ambulance, for them to arrive and load you up. If that whole process is more than 25 minutes, you probably should have driven yourself... and unless you lie about your brothers immediate distress, you will wait FAR longer than 25 minutes. We will just ignore the cost differentials.
You don't know what you're talking about... you are merely expressing your 'belief' that is primarily based in your emotions about your brother. I feel bad for your situation, but that doesn't give you the right to spread such obviously bad information, which will only lead to more people burdening an already stretched system (ambulances) and cost people who NEED their care their lives.
But that's okay, because your brother didn't have to wait as long, right?
/
Emergency Room visits are increasing under Obamacare
