Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
That 'panacea' of Socialized medicine coming to USA? Royal Darwin Hospital "shocking", AMA says (NT Australia news)
1 view
Skip to first unread message
ПеаБраин
Feb 18, 2013, 9:09:13 AM2/18/13
to
That 'panacea' of Socialized medicine coming to USA? Royal Darwin
Hospital "shocking", AMA says (NT Australia news)
"...The situation was so bad this week that two beds were crammed into
many emergency department cubicles, admitted patients were left in
corridors and nurses were running into the waiting room to treat
people.....
AMA NT president Dr Peter Beaumont said...
"Overcrowding leads to omissions. "People will die.''..."
Royal Darwin Hospital "shocking", AMA says - Northern Territory News
www.ntnews.com.au/article/2013/02/16/317689_ntnews.html3 days ago –
The situation was so bad this week that two beds were crammed into
many emergency department cubicles, admitted patients were left in ...
Royal Darwin Hospital "shocking", AMA says - Sport Balla ...
Hospital "shocking", AMA says (NT Australia news)
"...The situation was so bad this week that two beds were crammed into
many emergency department cubicles, admitted patients were left in
corridors and nurses were running into the waiting room to treat
people.....
AMA NT president Dr Peter Beaumont said...
"Overcrowding leads to omissions. "People will die.''..."
Royal Darwin Hospital "shocking", AMA says - Northern Territory News
www.ntnews.com.au/article/2013/02/16/317689_ntnews.html3 days ago –
The situation was so bad this week that two beds were crammed into
many emergency department cubicles, admitted patients were left in ...
Royal Darwin Hospital "shocking", AMA says - Sport Balla ...
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Feb 18, 2013, 3:37:32 PM2/18/13
to
(Non-English-speaking moron) wrote:
> That 'panacea' of Socialized medicine coming to USA? Royal Darwin
> Hospital "shocking", AMA says (NT Australia news)
>
> "...The situation was so bad this week that two beds were crammed into
> many emergency department cubicles, admitted patients were left in
> corridors and nurses were running into the waiting room to treat
> people.....
privilege, and they won't even treat you if you don't have insurance.)
ПеаБраин
Feb 19, 2013, 6:58:31 AM2/19/13
to
On Feb 18, 3:37 pm, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
Rubbish. You are just broadcasting your gullibility by swallowing the
anti American bias that infests Usenet.
All Americans over age 65 and disabled Americans qualify for
Medicare
where the US government pays health providers direct for health care
of
the elderly and disabled.
In addition:
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/EMTALA/
Overview
"In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor
Act
(EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of
ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes
specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer
emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE)
when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency
medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an
individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide
stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable
to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient
requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented...."
In addition:
Besides state MEDICAID health care iis available to the poor and many
comparable
individual state laws which are broader in scope than the federal
EMTALA, preceded EMTALA
Living in Arizona you might find the excerpt from the article pasted
below applicable:
Forced Medical Treatment for Illegals
"EMTALA provides uninsured people with medical care in hospital
emergency rooms. The coersive EMTALA obligates hospitals to treat the
uninsured but does not pay for that care. EMTALA requires each
emergency room to treat anyone who enters with an "emergency"
associated with cough, headache, hangnail, cardiac arrest, permeated
lumbar disc, drug addiction, alcohol overdose, gunshot injury,
automobile trauma, HIV-positive infection, mental problem, or
personality disorder. The definition of emergency is flexible and
vague and includes almost any condition requiring mandatory care....."
Google could take you to the article in its entirety but notice I used
the word "might" because your proven venomous anti American bias
prevents you from having any interest in reality.
anti American bias that infests Usenet.
All Americans over age 65 and disabled Americans qualify for
Medicare
where the US government pays health providers direct for health care
of
the elderly and disabled.
In addition:
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/EMTALA/
Overview
"In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor
Act
(EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of
ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes
specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer
emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE)
when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency
medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an
individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide
stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable
to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient
requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented...."
In addition:
Besides state MEDICAID health care iis available to the poor and many
comparable
individual state laws which are broader in scope than the federal
EMTALA, preceded EMTALA
Living in Arizona you might find the excerpt from the article pasted
below applicable:
Forced Medical Treatment for Illegals
"EMTALA provides uninsured people with medical care in hospital
emergency rooms. The coersive EMTALA obligates hospitals to treat the
uninsured but does not pay for that care. EMTALA requires each
emergency room to treat anyone who enters with an "emergency"
associated with cough, headache, hangnail, cardiac arrest, permeated
lumbar disc, drug addiction, alcohol overdose, gunshot injury,
automobile trauma, HIV-positive infection, mental problem, or
personality disorder. The definition of emergency is flexible and
vague and includes almost any condition requiring mandatory care....."
Google could take you to the article in its entirety but notice I used
the word "might" because your proven venomous anti American bias
prevents you from having any interest in reality.
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Feb 19, 2013, 3:24:03 PM2/19/13
to
ПеаБраин wrote:
> On Feb 18, 3:37 pm, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
>> Sounds like Phoenix, Arizona! (Only here, we get billed for the
>> privilege, and they won't even treat you if you don't have insurance.)
>
> Rubbish. You are just broadcasting your gullibility by swallowing the
> anti American bias that infests Usenet.
"Gullible"???? Have YOU tried to get medical care in a Phoenix, AZ
>> privilege, and they won't even treat you if you don't have insurance.)
>
> Rubbish. You are just broadcasting your gullibility by swallowing the
> anti American bias that infests Usenet.
emergency room? Fortunately I DO have insurance, but If I had not, I'd
probably still be waiting. (I speak from experience - you clearly do not!)
Poetic Justice
Feb 19, 2013, 7:13:01 PM2/19/13
to
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote
>Sounds like Phoenix, Arizona! (Only here,
>we get billed for the privilege,
>and they won't even treat you if you don't
>have insurance.)
Would you please name those Phoenix hospitals that are violating the
federal law?
>It requires hospitals to provide care to
>anyone needing emergency healthcare
>treatment regardless of citizenship, legal
>status or ability to pay. There are no
>reimbursement provisions. [Snip]
>However, in practical terms, EMTALA
>applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S.
-----------------------------------------------
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is a U.S.
Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA).
It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency
healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability
to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. [Snip]
EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals." The statute defines
"participating hospitals" as those that accept payment from the
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program.
However, in practical terms, EMTALA applies to virtually all hospitals
in the U.S.
>Sounds like Phoenix, Arizona! (Only here,
>we get billed for the privilege,
>and they won't even treat you if you don't
>have insurance.)
federal law?
>It requires hospitals to provide care to
>anyone needing emergency healthcare
>treatment regardless of citizenship, legal
>status or ability to pay. There are no
>reimbursement provisions. [Snip]
>However, in practical terms, EMTALA
>applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S.
-----------------------------------------------
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is a U.S.
Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA).
It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency
healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability
to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. [Snip]
EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals." The statute defines
"participating hospitals" as those that accept payment from the
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program.
However, in practical terms, EMTALA applies to virtually all hospitals
in the U.S.
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Feb 20, 2013, 2:08:02 PM2/20/13
to
Poetic Justice wrote:
> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote
>
>> Sounds like Phoenix, Arizona! (Only here,
>> we get billed for the privilege,
>
>> and they won't even treat you if you don't
>> have insurance.)
>
> Would you please name those Phoenix hospitals that are violating the
> federal law?
>
>> It requires hospitals to provide care to
>> anyone needing emergency healthcare
>> treatment regardless of citizenship, legal
>> status or ability to pay. There are no
>> reimbursement provisions.
to federal law, except when it feels like it. Also, are you sure that
includes private for profit hospitals? (I've read of more than one
occasion when the "emergency" patient was sent elsewhere.)
Except for a couple of bright spots like the Mayo Clinic (which ceased
accepting Medicare patients a few years ago) the quality of medical care
here leaves a lot to be desired, too. (But of course it is only
Americans who are unaware that the quality of medical care in the U.S.
ranks somewhere near the bottom, among industrialized nations.)
:ПеаБраин
Feb 20, 2013, 3:27:54 PM2/20/13
to
On Feb 20, 2:08 pm, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
22-Jul-2009 07:45 PM
! Please join this discussion about Cancer Survival Rates -- US versus
Europe within the Health & Medicine category.
Excerpt: Why are cancer survival rates higher in the US versus Europe
almost across the board?
<evgm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Poetic Justice wrote:
> > EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote
>
> >> Sounds like Phoenix, Arizona! (Only here,
> >> we get billed for the privilege,
>
> >> and they won't even treat you if you don't
> >> have insurance.)
>
> > Would you please name those Phoenix hospitals that are violating the
> > federal law?
>
> >> It requires hospitals to provide care to
> >> anyone needing emergency healthcare
> >> treatment regardless of citizenship, legal
> >> status or ability to pay. There are no
> >> reimbursement provisions.
...............................................................................................................
> Poetic Justice wrote:
> > EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote
>
> >> Sounds like Phoenix, Arizona! (Only here,
> >> we get billed for the privilege,
>
> >> and they won't even treat you if you don't
> >> have insurance.)
>
> > Would you please name those Phoenix hospitals that are violating the
> > federal law?
>
> >> It requires hospitals to provide care to
> >> anyone needing emergency healthcare
> >> treatment regardless of citizenship, legal
> >> status or ability to pay. There are no
> >> reimbursement provisions.
> Americans who are unaware that the quality of medical care in the U.S.
> ranks somewhere near the bottom, among industrialized nations.)
Cancer Survival Rates -- US versus Europe
> ranks somewhere near the bottom, among industrialized nations.)
22-Jul-2009 07:45 PM
! Please join this discussion about Cancer Survival Rates -- US versus
Europe within the Health & Medicine category.
Excerpt: Why are cancer survival rates higher in the US versus Europe
almost across the board?
Poetic Justice
Feb 20, 2013, 8:23:50 PM2/20/13
to
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote;
>That may be the LAW, but Arizona doesn't
>seem to consider itself subject to federal
>law, except when it feels like it.
Whatever!
I asked a very simple question about your statement.
>...and they won't even treat you if you
>don't have insurance.)
So Again! What hospital emergency rooms in Phoenix do this?
Based on your other post you seem to imply that you have 1st hand
knowledge of this?
>"Gullible"???? Have YOU tried to get
>medical care in a Phoenix, AZ emergency
>room? Fortunately I DO have insurance,
>but If I had not, I'd probably still be
>waiting. (I speak from experience - you
>clearly do not!)
WILL NOT treat the uninsured?
>(But of course it is only Americans who
>are unaware that the quality of medical
>care in the U.S. ranks somewhere near
>the bottom, among industrialized nations.)
Please post that report based on the "QUALITY of medical care".
Or are you thinking of that bullshit 2000 WHO report that ranked the US
as #37 in the World that was used by Obama's supporters (politicians and
media) during the health care debates even though they knew it was
bullshit?
------------------------------------------
Philip Musgrove, the editor-in-chief of the WHO report that accompanied
the rankings, calls the figures that resulted from this step "so many
made-up numbers," and the result a "nonsense ranking."
Dr. Musgrove, an economist who is now deputy editor of the journal
Health Affairs, says he was hired to edit the report's text but didn't
fully understand the methodology until after the report was released.
After he left the WHO, he wrote an article in 2003 for the medical
journal Lancet criticizing the rankings as "meaningless." [Snip]
A WHO spokesman says the organization has no plans to update the [2000]
rankings, and adds, "We would not consider it current [2009]."
And yet many people apparently do. The 37th place ranking is often cited
in today's [2009] overhaul debate, even though, in some ways, the U.S.
actually ranked a lot higher.
Specifically, it placed 15th overall, based on its performance in the
five criteria.
[2 of the 5 criteria really address the quality of care and 1 of the 2
is 'Responsiveness' which includes factors such as speed of health
services, privacy protections, choice of doctors and quality of
amenities.
In which the US was ranked #1]
But for the most widely publicized form of its rankings, the WHO took
the additional step of adjusting for national health expenditures per
capita, to calculate each country's health-care bang for its bucks.
Because the U.S. ranked first in spending, that adjustment pushed its
ranking down to 37th. Dominica, Costa Rica and Morocco ranked 42nd, 45th
and 94th before adjusting for spending levels, compared to the U.S.'s
No. 15 ranking. After adjustment, all three countries ranked higher than
the U.S.
Still, people often claim that the 37th-place ranking refers to quality
or outcomes.
High spending rates pushed the ranking down but didn't degrade the
quality of care.
>That may be the LAW, but Arizona doesn't
>seem to consider itself subject to federal
>law, except when it feels like it.
I asked a very simple question about your statement.
>...and they won't even treat you if you
>don't have insurance.)
So Again! What hospital emergency rooms in Phoenix do this?
Based on your other post you seem to imply that you have 1st hand
knowledge of this?
>"Gullible"???? Have YOU tried to get
>medical care in a Phoenix, AZ emergency
>room? Fortunately I DO have insurance,
>but If I had not, I'd probably still be
>waiting. (I speak from experience - you
>clearly do not!)
>Also, are you sure that includes private for
>profit hospitals?
You tell me. It's you that claimed that Phoenix hospital emergency rooms
>profit hospitals?
WILL NOT treat the uninsured?
>(But of course it is only Americans who
>are unaware that the quality of medical
>care in the U.S. ranks somewhere near
>the bottom, among industrialized nations.)
Or are you thinking of that bullshit 2000 WHO report that ranked the US
as #37 in the World that was used by Obama's supporters (politicians and
media) during the health care debates even though they knew it was
bullshit?
------------------------------------------
Philip Musgrove, the editor-in-chief of the WHO report that accompanied
the rankings, calls the figures that resulted from this step "so many
made-up numbers," and the result a "nonsense ranking."
Dr. Musgrove, an economist who is now deputy editor of the journal
Health Affairs, says he was hired to edit the report's text but didn't
fully understand the methodology until after the report was released.
After he left the WHO, he wrote an article in 2003 for the medical
journal Lancet criticizing the rankings as "meaningless." [Snip]
A WHO spokesman says the organization has no plans to update the [2000]
rankings, and adds, "We would not consider it current [2009]."
And yet many people apparently do. The 37th place ranking is often cited
in today's [2009] overhaul debate, even though, in some ways, the U.S.
actually ranked a lot higher.
Specifically, it placed 15th overall, based on its performance in the
five criteria.
[2 of the 5 criteria really address the quality of care and 1 of the 2
is 'Responsiveness' which includes factors such as speed of health
services, privacy protections, choice of doctors and quality of
amenities.
In which the US was ranked #1]
But for the most widely publicized form of its rankings, the WHO took
the additional step of adjusting for national health expenditures per
capita, to calculate each country's health-care bang for its bucks.
Because the U.S. ranked first in spending, that adjustment pushed its
ranking down to 37th. Dominica, Costa Rica and Morocco ranked 42nd, 45th
and 94th before adjusting for spending levels, compared to the U.S.'s
No. 15 ranking. After adjustment, all three countries ranked higher than
the U.S.
Still, people often claim that the 37th-place ranking refers to quality
or outcomes.
High spending rates pushed the ranking down but didn't degrade the
quality of care.
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Feb 21, 2013, 3:18:49 PM2/21/13
to
Poetic Justice wrote:
> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote;
>> (But of course it is only Americans who
>> are unaware that the quality of medical
>> care in the U.S. ranks somewhere near
>> the bottom, among industrialized nations.)
>
> Please post that report based on the "QUALITY of medical care".
>
> Or are you thinking of that bullshit 2000 WHO report that ranked the US
> as #37 in the World that was used by Obama's supporters (politicians and
> media) during the health care debates even though they knew it was
> bullshit?
believe well documented data, if it disagrees with your prejudices!
(Anyway, all this American political crap doesn't belong on a travel
news-group, so I apologize for letting myself be provoked into
responding to the idiot who started the thread.)
Poetic Justice
Feb 21, 2013, 6:53:42 PM2/21/13
to
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote;
>Oh, get stuffed!
Translation; I lied earlier and was called on it.
>Sounds like Phoenix, Arizona! (Only here,
>we get billed for the privilege, and they
I provided info on the discredited WHO report which was very simple to
find.
What's your excuse for not posting a link to your "well documented data"
on QUALITY of care in the US?
So you lie and can't back-up your claims...who's the moron?
>...if it disagrees with your prejudices!
I made 2 points to you, I proved #1 and gave #2 decent examples on
Quality of care.
Where's my prejudices?
#1 hospital emergency rooms MUST treat the uninsured despite your lie.
#2 The QUALITY of care in the US.
>(Anyway, all this American political crap
>doesn't belong on a travel news-group, so
>I apologize for letting myself be provoked
>into responding to the idiot who started
>the thread.)
Oddly you had no problems posting your anti-Bush and anti-America rants
here (also cross-posted) during the Bush presidency.
>Oh, get stuffed!
Translation; I lied earlier and was called on it.
>Sounds like Phoenix, Arizona! (Only here,
>won't even treat you if you don't have
>insurance.)
>insurance.)
>Clearly you are one of the morons who
>choose not to believe well documented
>data,...
>choose not to believe well documented
I provided info on the discredited WHO report which was very simple to
find.
What's your excuse for not posting a link to your "well documented data"
on QUALITY of care in the US?
So you lie and can't back-up your claims...who's the moron?
>...if it disagrees with your prejudices!
I made 2 points to you, I proved #1 and gave #2 decent examples on
Quality of care.
Where's my prejudices?
#1 hospital emergency rooms MUST treat the uninsured despite your lie.
#2 The QUALITY of care in the US.
>(Anyway, all this American political crap
>doesn't belong on a travel news-group, so
>I apologize for letting myself be provoked
>into responding to the idiot who started
>the thread.)
here (also cross-posted) during the Bush presidency.
0 new messages