Full Version: Health Cuts for the Poor
America's Debate > Archive > Policy Debate Archive > [A] Domestic Policy > [A] Poverty and the Homeless
This is what Bush is doing for healthcare. 
Since I can't post the whole article I'll just post my favorite parts.
Yeah, those disabled people are always stubbing their toes and going to the E.R. Maybe poor people don't know the difference between an emergency and a preventative visit. I'm sure this is all for the good of the economy. Plus it helps disuade anyone who might even consider thinking of government subsidized health care as an option. Obviously you can't trust them even in an emergency.
Since I can't post the whole article I'll just post my favorite parts.
QUOTE
Bush policy rolls back ER services for poor on Medicaid
Friday, January 17, 2003
....But now the Bush administration has decided that states can limit such coverage "to facilitate more appropriate use of preventive care and primary care," the letter said.
Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., said the new policy "would undermine access to essential emergency services for low-income Americans," including children, the elderly and the disabled.
He said he did not understand how the administration could, by a letter, make such profound changes in a policy established by statute.
Administration officials said the basic Medicaid law allowed states to set reasonable limits on the amount, duration and scope of services....
Ben Bearden, the Medicaid director in Louisiana, said his state wanted to limit Medicaid coverage for adults to three emergency room visits a year.
"Three emergency visits a year for an adult may sound like a small number, but it's really not," Bearden said yesterday. "I'm 60 years old, and I've been to an emergency room once in my life. The E.R. is very expensive, and people in this state use it inappropriately. They go in for a stubbed toe."
Friday, January 17, 2003
....But now the Bush administration has decided that states can limit such coverage "to facilitate more appropriate use of preventive care and primary care," the letter said.
Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., said the new policy "would undermine access to essential emergency services for low-income Americans," including children, the elderly and the disabled.
He said he did not understand how the administration could, by a letter, make such profound changes in a policy established by statute.
Administration officials said the basic Medicaid law allowed states to set reasonable limits on the amount, duration and scope of services....
Ben Bearden, the Medicaid director in Louisiana, said his state wanted to limit Medicaid coverage for adults to three emergency room visits a year.
"Three emergency visits a year for an adult may sound like a small number, but it's really not," Bearden said yesterday. "I'm 60 years old, and I've been to an emergency room once in my life. The E.R. is very expensive, and people in this state use it inappropriately. They go in for a stubbed toe."
Yeah, those disabled people are always stubbing their toes and going to the E.R. Maybe poor people don't know the difference between an emergency and a preventative visit. I'm sure this is all for the good of the economy. Plus it helps disuade anyone who might even consider thinking of government subsidized health care as an option. Obviously you can't trust them even in an emergency.
QUOTE(Danya @ Jan 18 2003, 08:31 AM)
This is what Bush is doing for healthcare. :huh:
Since I can't post the whole article I'll just post my favorite parts.
Bush policy rolls back ER services for poor on Medicaid
Friday, January 17, 2003
....But now the Bush administration has decided that states can limit such coverage "to facilitate more appropriate use of preventive care and primary care," the letter said.
Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., said the new policy "would undermine access to essential emergency services for low-income Americans," including children, the elderly and the disabled.
He said he did not understand how the administration could, by a letter, make such profound changes in a policy established by statute.
Administration officials said the basic Medicaid law allowed states to set reasonable limits on the amount, duration and scope of services....
Ben Bearden, the Medicaid director in Louisiana, said his state wanted to limit Medicaid coverage for adults to three emergency room visits a year.
"Three emergency visits a year for an adult may sound like a small number, but it's really not," Bearden said yesterday. "I'm 60 years old, and I've been to an emergency room once in my life. The E.R. is very expensive, and people in this state use it inappropriately. They go in for a stubbed toe."
Yeah, those disabled people are always stubbing their toes and going to the E.R. Maybe poor people don't know the difference between an emergency and a preventative visit. I'm sure this is all for the good of the economy. Plus it helps disuade anyone who might even consider thinking of government subsidized health care as an option. Obviously you can't trust them even in an emergency.
Since I can't post the whole article I'll just post my favorite parts.
QUOTE
Bush policy rolls back ER services for poor on Medicaid
Friday, January 17, 2003
....But now the Bush administration has decided that states can limit such coverage "to facilitate more appropriate use of preventive care and primary care," the letter said.
Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., said the new policy "would undermine access to essential emergency services for low-income Americans," including children, the elderly and the disabled.
He said he did not understand how the administration could, by a letter, make such profound changes in a policy established by statute.
Administration officials said the basic Medicaid law allowed states to set reasonable limits on the amount, duration and scope of services....
Ben Bearden, the Medicaid director in Louisiana, said his state wanted to limit Medicaid coverage for adults to three emergency room visits a year.
"Three emergency visits a year for an adult may sound like a small number, but it's really not," Bearden said yesterday. "I'm 60 years old, and I've been to an emergency room once in my life. The E.R. is very expensive, and people in this state use it inappropriately. They go in for a stubbed toe."
Yeah, those disabled people are always stubbing their toes and going to the E.R. Maybe poor people don't know the difference between an emergency and a preventative visit. I'm sure this is all for the good of the economy. Plus it helps disuade anyone who might even consider thinking of government subsidized health care as an option. Obviously you can't trust them even in an emergency.
Danya, you would not believe the amount of abuse the health care system takes. The problem is, with most liberal thinking, is that when it "appears" that you aren't paying for it...you tend to believe it's free. Therefore, things that appear "free" get abused. Simple human condition. What I would like to see sometime is a debate on why liberals think it's ok to rob someone and give someone else their money.
Darcaine
Nice try, but you forget, I work for a health insurance company. I process Emergency claims all the time. Are you saying that poor people are more likely to abuse the E.R. than a person with commercial coverage? Don't you think in an emergency they should be given the benefit of the doubt? If you want to cut back then cut back on their dental or their mammograms or something. But sending sick or injured people to the ER with no way to pay for it is pretty slimey.
These are emergency visits. The only time insurance companies question your emergency visit is if:
A ) There may be third party liability such as auto insurance or workers comp that may be responsible for payment.
OR
B ) The bill is submitted with a routine diagnosis telling us it's a checkup. Not even the insurance companies are going to question how badly you stubbed your toe or if it was something that wasn't life threatening.
A fever for a child can be life threatening. What, other than a letter from the President, is there to indicate poor and disabled people are actually abusing emergency services? How much money is this saving? Is it worth it? If they can question an emergency visit what's next?
What would you say if it was your grandmother being turned away for a broken hip because she had already used up her ER visits for the year on bronchitis or dehydration?
These are emergency visits. The only time insurance companies question your emergency visit is if:
A ) There may be third party liability such as auto insurance or workers comp that may be responsible for payment.
OR
B ) The bill is submitted with a routine diagnosis telling us it's a checkup. Not even the insurance companies are going to question how badly you stubbed your toe or if it was something that wasn't life threatening.
A fever for a child can be life threatening. What, other than a letter from the President, is there to indicate poor and disabled people are actually abusing emergency services? How much money is this saving? Is it worth it? If they can question an emergency visit what's next?
What would you say if it was your grandmother being turned away for a broken hip because she had already used up her ER visits for the year on bronchitis or dehydration?
I don't think America's uninsured try to abuse their health coverage or lack thereof, but unfortunately people without access to medical care often end up using the emergency room as their doctor's office. Of course this is often after a common symptom has developed into something serious. If we some type of universal health care system (I would prefer it to be with a copay) then more of these type of cases could be handled in a physician's office.
I mean, really, who wants to hang out at an emergency room for fun?
I mean, really, who wants to hang out at an emergency room for fun?
Private insurance companies and employers might think this is a great cost cutting idea. If the state can do it why can't they?
I can't speak for other states, but in California it is illegal for anyone to be turned away from an emergency room.
It is now illegal for the hospital to ask for insurance information when the person enters the ER. Such information is only asked for after the patient has been tended to.
As for those of us who are insured, at least in my case, the co-payment is much higher (MUCH HIGHER - $15.00 versus $250.00) for an ER visit than for a doctor office visit. This does much to keep one from using the ER, unless life is threatened.
It is now illegal for the hospital to ask for insurance information when the person enters the ER. Such information is only asked for after the patient has been tended to.
As for those of us who are insured, at least in my case, the co-payment is much higher (MUCH HIGHER - $15.00 versus $250.00) for an ER visit than for a doctor office visit. This does much to keep one from using the ER, unless life is threatened.
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Jan 18 2003, 04:44 PM)
If we some type of universal health care system (I would prefer it to be with a copay) then more of these type of cases could be handled in a physician's office.
How did we go from talking about health care for the poor to talking about universal health care? Suddenly my tax dollars are going to subsidize health care for Bill Gates's father--that makes sense. And really, is implementing an enormous government boondoggle that nobody wants going to increase the odds that the poor will suddenly recognize the benefits of wellness programs and preventative medicine?
Think of it this way: after all the effort spent on developing breakfast programs and food stamps and other programs designed to ensure that poor kids aren't starving, what has been the result? More poor kids are obese than their non-poor counterparts. They're not starving--they're stricken with elevated cholesterol at age 8. Once again, the compassionate, big-government solution only creates more problems. I say, do more to show the poor how to take care of themselves so they won't have to make emergency visits, rather than just throwing universal health care at them and thinking that will take care of everything.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.