Aileron Posted August 15, 2004 Report Posted August 15, 2004 After working two years in a hospital, I'm thinking of maybe a change that can be made to health care all over the world. I'm thinking that Emergency Rooms should be given the perrogative to turn away patients with minor injuries. See, ERs function under treat first, pay later. With somebody suffering a stroke or cardiac arrest, this is undoubtedly the proper approach. However, I'm thinking along the lines of those with an infection, minor laceration, twisted ankle or the like. Such patients can wait to receive their care, and it would probably be better for all of use if they were sent to some kind of outpatient facility. Your thoughts?
Yupa Posted August 15, 2004 Report Posted August 15, 2004 Um...as I understand it, this is already the way it works. They don't turn them away, but they do make them sit in a chair until there are no serious cases the staff need to attend to.
BG Posted August 15, 2004 Report Posted August 15, 2004 They don't turn them away, but they do make them sit in a chair until there are no serious cases the staff need to attend to.Problems can arise at any time, there is no time when an emergency room isn't busy, or preparing for a serious case, even if none are on the way. (yet)
Jauggernaut Posted August 15, 2004 Report Posted August 15, 2004 I am guessing you guys are from the states . Be like Canada get health care plans build HUGE hopsitals and make it illegal to have fireworks/crackers and a gun registry plan and you'll be set. BTW I agree...
MasterDrake Posted August 15, 2004 Report Posted August 15, 2004 um yeah or we could just hike taxs and make them all government funded ^_^ thus free health care for all even hobos like u juag
Jericho24. Posted August 15, 2004 Report Posted August 15, 2004 free healthcare is bad, england has it and people come from all over the world to abuse it.
A Soldier Posted August 15, 2004 Report Posted August 15, 2004 free healthcare is bad, england has it and people come from all over the world to abuse it.Isn't free healthcare provided for residents of the UK only? Others have to use the private healthcare sector, no? I'm thinking that Emergency Rooms should be given the perrogative to turn away patients with minor injuries. See' date=' ERs function under treat first, pay later. With somebody suffering a stroke or cardiac arrest, this is undoubtedly the proper approach. However, I'm thinking along the lines of those with an infection, minor laceration, twisted ankle or the like. Such patients can wait to receive their care, and it would probably be better for all of use if they were sent to some kind of outpatient facility.[/quote']Like SuSE said, I believe that's how they work...
MonteZuma Posted August 16, 2004 Report Posted August 16, 2004 Health care should be free and should be paid for out of taxes. Everyone needs it. In a wealthy country, nobody should be denied basic health care - not even hobos. There are ways to get people out of hospitals. One is to make queues for cases which aren't emergencies, another is to beef up private heath care options and opportunities.... Have a medical insurance levy and make everyone who can afford it pay it. Have private health insurance for extras, like choice of doctor, private room, etc. Extend national health cover to include visits to private doctors and allow doctors to bulk bill the national health insurance scheme for payment - to get people out of hospitals for minor emergencies. Include some medicines in the health insurance scheme too, especially for the disadvantaged. OMG I think I solved the health care crisis!
Jauggernaut Posted August 16, 2004 Report Posted August 16, 2004 MasterDrake i'm afraid to say that we still pay less for our taxes then the states PLUS I didnt have to go to boot camp and I can still beat you up. ALSO we dont get healthcare free we just dont pay for it in CERTAIN ways.
candygirl Posted August 16, 2004 Report Posted August 16, 2004 free healthcare is bad, england has it and people come from all over the world to abuse it.Yes just like canada...but we have to pay for it now. oh well no biggy. It will stop the people from abusing it.
BG Posted August 17, 2004 Report Posted August 17, 2004 Meh. The way it's set up in my 'home town' Is this:Any patients not requiring Immediate medical attention must go to a seperate care center.. I forget what it's called, convenient care? This leaves the ER free for emergencies and such. I don't know about other places, I've never had to go to either while out-of-town..
Aileron Posted August 17, 2004 Author Report Posted August 17, 2004 The way ERs work is that they are required by law to treat every patient that wants in. Now, somebody with a paper cut may wait hours and hours, but they still get admitted in the ER, and they pay the same way as someone with cardiac arrest. Some hospitals add a minor injuries unit to their ERs, but it is still an ER nonetheless. Monte, what you are describing is a national insurance, which is a very well discussed possibility. It has its share of faults, but it is a reasonable idea. Its a good idea for socialist countries like the UK and Canada, but I'm not so sure it would be as good an idea for the US. Besides, I DEFINITELY think we need to sort out Social Security and eliminating a few little used programs before even thinking about adding another program. The Tort Law reform (putting a cap on "pain and suffering" in lawsuits) would be a good start, basically because it eliminates the lawyers (who really don't have to be there to provide health care) from the issue. If we tried both ideas at once, we would probably get very good results.
MasterDrake Posted August 17, 2004 Report Posted August 17, 2004 how bout we just stop allowing stupid law suites eg ouch I burned my tongue I am sueing
Vile Requiem Posted August 17, 2004 Report Posted August 17, 2004 To claim that the US doesn't have socialistic elements is just laughable. I did a research paper on the impact of the Communist Manifesto on the US, and I got me an A in the class, so hopefully I know what i'm talking about While the US is never going to turn into China, our represen!@#$%^&*ive democracy has added elements throughout the years that have come straight from Communistic principles, such as the right of women to vote, the right to unionize for better working conditions, the development of OSHA to protect worker's rights, Overtime, which protects the worker's right to not be owned by their boss for more then 40 hrs a week (which sadly Bush wishes to eliminate), minimum wage, Social Security, the elimination of the Bourgeoisie/proletarian system in America thanks to the GI bill which led to the establishment of the Middle Class, and the inevitable creation of a universal health care system. Laws which protect the rights of the small against the large, such as apartment codes so that another Triangle Shirtwaist Fire can never happen. Communist policies that benefit Americans have been co-opted for years. I dub it "Selective Socialism".
Dr.Worthless Posted August 17, 2004 Report Posted August 17, 2004 Overtime, which protects the worker's right to not be owned by their boss for more then 40 hrs a week (which sadly Bush wishes to eliminate), Source, please.
Vile Requiem Posted August 17, 2004 Report Posted August 17, 2004 I apologize for not listing my source: http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/overt.../ns07082004.cfm
MonteZuma Posted August 17, 2004 Report Posted August 17, 2004 I don't know about tort law reform. But I realise that many compensation claims are ridculous. For example some dude here won a big payout because he dived into a sandbank at the beach. The argument was that there should have been signs or something. Sheesh. However.....I worry about plans to cap payouts or restrict victim's access to legal help. If I am ever injured through someone elses negligence I want to be compensated. If I am seriously injured by someone else I want to be compensated big money. I want everything that was taken away from me to be returned in cash or kind. The key to this is firstly to make sure every health and other important expense is covered immediately. That includes things like mortgage payments. Then, for permanent injury, make sure that financial compensation is spread out over the life of the victim. That way payment can be stopped if health improves, new effective treatments fix the problem, or the claim was found to be false or exaggerated. Spreading out the payments also prevents a situation whereby the victim goes on a spending spree buying luxury items and then leeches of the government for the rest of their life. All of this needs to be accompanied by robust laws and legal processes that make sure that cases are dealt with quickly and efficiently - without the opportunity for lawyers to rort the system. Doctors should be chosen by the court - not by lawyers. Compensation might include giving the victim a job that suits their injury rather than just giving cash. Sincerely, Captain Obvious PS I hardly think Canada and the UK are socialist countries. Capitalist countries with a social conscience might be more correct.
»Ducky Posted August 18, 2004 Report Posted August 18, 2004 Touching briefly upon a psychological standpoint. There are quite a number of unstable minds in society; not to say that all are detrimental to other people, but just hold dimmed perspectives of reality for themselves. If the ER rejects a 50 year old woman for an injury that they find unsuitable and she does not, a few uncontrolled scenerio's may take place.Many would take it upon themselves for self medication and treatment, which is bad if not fatal in some cases.Certainly a sprained ankle is not death, but to someone with little understanding of medical problems (And there are quite a few) there would be little reason why she shouldn't go home and toss back a few of her husbands painkillers.Would that not create a few lawsuits in itself? I do realize the benefits to rejecting patients, but the ER will always need to be as it is so that people can be secure about the treatment they will recieve.Pain is often in the mind just as it is physically. When you hear from a doctors mouth that advil will work, it is extremely different than taking it on your own without his knowledge. Yea... I r liek pi
Dr.Worthless Posted August 18, 2004 Report Posted August 18, 2004 Many would take it upon themselves for self medication and treatment, which is bad if not fatal in some cases.Certainly a sprained ankle is not death, but to someone with little understanding of medical problems (And there are quite a few) there would be little reason why she shouldn't go home and toss back a few of her husbands painkillers.Would that not create a few lawsuits in itself? Hopefully the legislation will continue forward and outlaw these sorts of lawsuits. In my opinion, there has to be a burden of proof on the person that sues, to prove that whatever wrong was done to them was done with malicious intent. Case in point, Mrs.NaturalSelectionAtWork above would have to prove that the medical center she was turned away from had malicious intent in doing so. They WANTED her to take the painkillers and kill herself, so therefore are liable for her death. Or prove neglect, say the hospital told her to take the painkillers, or didn't get to her in time to send her home. I do believe that if you walk into a emergency room for something that isnt an injury, they staff should atleast say "sorry, you do not require emergency !@#$%^&*istance, do X and Y and go see a normal doctor tommorow." Another case in point, sueing gun companies for the death of someone at the hands of their guns. The person who sues should have to prove that the gun companies made that gun, and sold it to X provider for the provider to sell to them, for the purpose of their child shooting themselves. Get the idea? Placing blame on other folks instead of placing the blame on ourselves is whats getting America into alot of trouble now adays. Folks need to wake up and realize some of the dumb -*BAD WORD*- they do is because they are dumb -*BAD WORD*-s, not because gun companies made guns that can kill, or because mcdonalds serves their coffee hot, or because the -*BAD WORD*-ing city doesn't put up signs warning you not to dive head first into a -*BAD WORD*-ing sandbank. (Holy jesus christ at the last one, If I was the judge I woulda kicked his -*BAD WORD*- out of my courtroom, even better if I was president i'd activate the draft, draft only this idiot, close the draft, and make sure he was parachuted into wherever al-sadir is fortified in Najaf. )
MonteZuma Posted August 18, 2004 Report Posted August 18, 2004 In my opinion, there has to be a burden of proof on the person that sues, to prove that whatever wrong was done to them was done with malicious intent. Case in point, Mrs.NaturalSelectionAtWork above would have to prove that the medical center she was turned away from had malicious intent in doing so. They WANTED her to take the painkillers and kill herself, so therefore are liable for her death. Or prove neglect, say the hospital told her to take the painkillers, or didn't get to her in time to send her home. I do believe that if you walk into a emergency room for something that isnt an injury, they staff should atleast say "sorry, you do not require emergency !@#$%^&*istance, do X and Y and go see a normal doctor tommorow." .....I'd say most compensation claims aren't based on malicious intent. They are probably based on negligence. Based on my experience with ERs, when it comes to non-emergencies I think that they are designed to cater for the poor and for 'dumb -*BAD WORD*-s'. Everybody else goes to the doctor because the parking is better and the service is faster. They even have more and better magazines . Nevertheless someone needs to look after dumb -*BAD WORD*-s. Apparently Mrs.NaturalSelectionAtWork was not in a position to understand the extent or seriousness of her own injuries - and neither was the nurse behind the gl!@#$%^&* window at the ER. Only a doctor is qualified to give medical advice that is in any way conclusive. She went to an ER for professional advice and treatment. She got none. I can't see any practical way around it. If someone turns up at a hospital they must be examined and they should be given advice and treated. Dumb people are people too.
Dr.Worthless Posted August 18, 2004 Report Posted August 18, 2004 Apparently Mrs.NaturalSelectionAtWork was not in a position to understand the extent or seriousness of her own injuries - and neither was the nurse behind the gl!@#$%^&* window at the ER. Only a doctor is qualified to give medical advice that is in any way conclusive. She went to an ER for professional advice and treatment. She got none. I can't see any practical way around it. If someone turns up at a hospital they must be examined and they should be given advice and treated. Dumb people are people too. Yes, Dumb people are people too, but just because the are dumb doesn't mean we need to cater to their stupidity at the detriment to everyone else. If you're not comfortable with a nurse telling them that the scrape on their knee doesn't deserve emergency room treatment, then perhaps an intern medical student can be the person in the waiting room giving pre-diagnosis (doesn't something along these lines already happen? I dunno, haven't been to the emergency room since breaking my leg.) Why should any hospital be required to see patients that do not require immediate care? (And no this isn't a place for you to pick this post apart, the above is within reason) Simple, they shouldn't. I'm not preventing anyone from getting health care, I'm simply stating that if your case isn't an emergency, they shouldn't be at the emergency room. Now if Mrs.NaturalSelectionAtWork deems the cut on her finger an emergency, she has every right to go to the hospital, but the hospital shouldn't be required to take the time to treat a minor injury that can be handled by a general practice doctor.
»Ducky Posted August 18, 2004 Report Posted August 18, 2004 For my area, we have little to no option of getting care for injuries at night hours save the ER.I don't see why Mrs.NaturalSelectionAtWork can't get her paper cut treated until the 14 car accident victims arrive.
MonteZuma Posted August 19, 2004 Report Posted August 19, 2004 (And no this isn't a place for you to pick this post apart, the above is within reason)I'll be the judge of that! Yes, Dumb people are people too, but just because the are dumb doesn't mean we need to cater to their stupidity at the detriment to everyone else.Yes we do. A compassionate society tries to cater for anyone with a disability or disadvantage. If you're not comfortable with a nurse telling them that the scrape on their knee doesn't deserve emergency room treatment, then perhaps an intern medical student can be the person in the waiting room giving pre-diagnosis (doesn't something along these lines already happen? I dunno, haven't been to the emergency room since breaking my leg.)Maybe. But a scraped knee or a sprained ankle is one thing. There was a story in the press here of a chronic migraine sufferer going to an ER. He was given panadeine or something and told to go home and lie down. The next morning he was dead. It is dangerous to ignore a person's fears and dismiss their illness as minor. If someone is prepared to wait in an ER for hours they obviously think they have a serious problem. I think it is best to give the person the benefit of the doubt as much as practicable. How long does it take to put a band-aid on a knee scrape anyway? Why should any hospital be required to see patients that do not require immediate care?You know. The point is, these people need care. Whether it be an emergency or not is fairly inconsequential in the end. Here is another idea. Why not have a GP's surgery inside the ER to cater for these situations? Then again, what difference does it make if the doctor is part of the ER or inside a surgery? These people are sick. Treat them. Simple, they shouldn't.Its not really that simple. I'm not preventing anyone from getting health care, I'm simply stating that if your case isn't an emergency, they shouldn't be at the emergency room. Now if Mrs.NaturalSelectionAtWork deems the cut on her finger an emergency, she has every right to go to the hospital, but the hospital shouldn't be required to take the time to treat a minor injury that can be handled by a general practice doctor.Again, if someone is prepared to wait in a ER for hours to get a band-aid on a cut finger, the least a doctor can do is put a friggin band-aid on it and send her back to the hostel she escaped from. Picking apart is fun!
Recommended Posts