I've never been to an ER here - but what happens in this scenario? When someone who is uninsured goes to the hospital? Is the hospital supposed to absorb that cost?

edited to add: Just realized that this is the case. So the cost of healthcare goes up, in part, because hospitals have to absorb the costs of treating people who don't have any insurance.

I have the inside track since my mom is an ER practitioner.

Welfare/Medicare/Medicaid government assistance programs provide people with insurance. If they qualify for the program, their emergency room visits and all costs included are absolutely free, whereas a normal insured person would have to pay whatever their insurance provider requires. Therefore, people on these programs (especially those that are generational abusers of the welfare system looking for a free ride on the taxpayer's back) choose to abuse the Emergency Room because hey, it's free. If they went to a doctor's office they would have to pay out of pocket in most cases, because some facets of government assistance will not pay for privatized visits or specialists. Therefore, these people go to the Emergency Room for EVERYTHING, costing the hospitals millions of dollars each year. Those absorbed dollars from system abusers-and I'm not talking about those that are disabled or on welfare because they are so incapacitated they cannot physically work-get passed back to the taxpayer when taxes for social programs come out of our paychecks. In fact, the Welfare system heavily borrowed from Social Security funds, which is partly why young professionals like myself will NEVER get to see the monies being taken out of my paycheck now when I retire. It's not even there, because it's being used to fund social programs for people who don't work.

My mom works for one of the most prestigious medical systems in the United States. When signing off on charts, her ER recently rated that 7 out of every 11 visits to the ER were people on some type of medical assistance. Only 2 out of those 7 visits were actually for bonafide emergencies. That means it can be assumed that 5 out of 11 visits were just people abusing the system. In addition, the long ER waits (3+ hours to even see a doctor in the EMERGENCY ROOM) are perpetuated by these system abusers effectively derailing what could be a streamlined process, because they are there to be seen for stubbed toes, runny noses, superficial lacerations that could easily be solved with a Band-Aid, headaches, sore throats, etc. Sometimes there aren't any health issues at all, these people just want to "make sure nothing is wrong with them." I'm not even joking. No wonder my mom feels homicidal at the end of her shift some nights.

I actually just called her. She's working until 2am. She's seen 22 patients this evening, and only six were actually what the hospital considered "emergencies." The rest were things that could be taken care of in a doctor's office or with a freakin' cough drop.

It's sad, really.

Please show all of us the stats that back this up. Also how long are the waiting times to get the service and if you just happend to be elderly or some other disposable group you have to pay for it with your own money.

People stay in jobs they hate for a lot of reasons. That's no reason to descend into Socialism.

No need to be alarmed. If you were the insurance company you wouldn't want to be forced to cover someone who you knew would require more care then they could be expected to pay for. Insurance companies stay in business by people not getting sick as often as those people fear they will. You pay in year by healthy year and they take your money and invest it in secure markets (which you could do yourself), gambling that you won't get sick. If you do get sick, they probably lose money on your premiums, but make it back on the investments. That's how they stay in business.

But if they already know that you are going to be sick, and they won't have time to make money off the investment, why would they want to handle your account? Would you want your business to be forced to sell goods and services at a loss?

Of course, since Socialism is in effect in America, most States have an "Insurer of last resort" who is required to take you anyway. It costs more, but that's to cover your increased cost of medical care. It doesn't usually cost as much as it should, because the State forces healthy people to cover some of those costs as well as their own through onerous taxes.

Most Socialized insurance programs simply seek to expand that type of system, forcing more and more healthy people to pay for more and more sick people. In some countries, enough people fear they are going to be sick that they can vote in that form of slavery. Then they learn that it eventually comes with rationing, waste, and restrictive policies on personal behavior.

A smart man learns from his own mistakes, a wise man learns from the mistakes of others. I just wish that for once, the US would be wise, and learn from the mistakes of Socialized countries. The inequities of a private health care system may be hard for sick folks (which is why a compassionate people have private charity), but if you forcibly drag the producers down to pay for those who cannot produce, you end up with a country full of people who cannot produce.

Kind of like trying to keep the Titanic afloat by adding more passengers.

Well that's really kinda true. Because not only arethere more sick people, but as is just human nature, some of the well people think, "Heck, I'm paying for this, I should use it up" and go into the doctor for every cold and scrape.

And what I think is worse for humanity in general, many people who feel over taxed to pay for the poor stop giving to charity. People in need lose the personal touch of private charity and people who are more fortunate lose the benefits of choosing to sacrifice for others. Instead, the unfortunate develop a sense of entitlement with no sense of gratitude and the fortunate feel put upon and resistant.

It's no wonder it usually takes a tyrrany to keep Socialism in force.

here's a bag. puke away.

I see I left out the important bits.

30+ years ago I paid FIVE DOLLAR A MONTH for health insurance.

You read that right. $5.

The local hospital was owned by the COUNTY not some for-profit corporation.

I had an appendectomy. Totally paid for.

A couple of years later I had to have knee surgery to remove torn cartilage. Totally paid for

13 years later I had to have repairs done to that knee because of the damage caused by the previous surgery. The insurance company weaseled out of paying their fair share by claiming the surgeon "overcharged" and we were left with several thousand dollars to pay on TOP of the 20% they managed to stick us with.

Once upon a time (preReagan) health insurance was REGULATED by the federal government.

Hospitals were owned by cities and counties NOT some for-profit bunch of thieves.

health care in this country was among the best in the world and the most affordable.

My how times have changed.

Yeah let's privatize everything from prisons to the freaking army. As long as somebody can get RICH off us who cares?

Oh and btw I am absolutely opposed to single payer health care, i.e., government insurance.

What we need is government regulation of the insurance and health care fields. they were NEVER meant to be for-profit. THAT is what's wrong with them.

I can't believe no one can see that.

For every dollar that's paid in insurance premiums, a minimum of 90% should go back to the insureds. That's how it used to work.

but corporate interests saw a chance to make a killing and they are killing the insureds off slowly but surely.

My DH took a job paying 50% of the market rate in order to get health insurance. I had cancer in the past -- not having heath insurance is a tad frightening, as in terrifying. We fought about him taking that job. They knew we had no insurance, and they knew my history with cancer -- I will always believe that is why the made such an offer.

He's now changed jobs, thankfully, and I can't help but find "the justice of the universe" in action as I watch that company implode because they lost someone with knowledge they can't replace.

Posh. Why would anyone invest millions of dollars into an insurance company if they didn't expect to make a profit?

Most insurance companies don't want their paying customers to die, but they depend on Doctors to prevent that. Doctors depend on schools to teach them and look who is in charge of the schools. The Unions who pushed for insurance benefits the hardest and who seem to hate the insurance companies the most.

I hate the insurance companies too, but I wouldn't wish Socialism on my worst enemy.

I would like to see a system in which doctors decide courses of treatments, not insurance companies. One with -- as a couple of people already said -- an emphasis on nutrition and prevention based on science instead of the popular press.

I would also like to see the US enact laws that pharmaceutical companies cannot charge more for medicines sold in the US than in other countries. One of the things that always gets left out in these discussions is that other countries fix the price of medicines. We are essentially subsidizing sales of pharmaceuticals in those countries. There is a reason drugs cost less in Canada and England, and it is not drug store profits in the US.

I would like to see per capita cost of medical care in industrialized nations calculated without the cost of prescription drugs included. While I would not be surprised to find we pay more, I would expect that the difference is much less than it is when the cost of prescription medicines is factored in. There's a reason that the state of Washington has a program to help people buy drugs in Canada.

Like obese people, who according to all the new studies, require more health care than thin people.

How would that make you feel?

I would hope that it would not make me feel that I am entitled to steal money from healthy people.

I might not have the moral fortitude to resist, which is why healthy people should vote against it while they are still healthy. Sometimes you have to suffer for your convictions, and sometimes that suffering leads to death. Courage is doing the things you fear, and so courageous people will vote against State run Socialist medicine.

The death of the Charity Hospital was caused by Medicare. I was born in a Charity Hospital and I know my Father's mother left her assets to it. What worthy Charity can I leave my investments to? "Save the Wolves" while people enslave each other to pay for flu shots? I don't feel good about that.

I thought the same thing, Susan.

The idea is spreading the risk. The current model is avoiding the risk entirely whenever possible.

The other example I thought of is denying coverage to African American women who, according to all the new studies and current TV ads, are more likely to have expensive health issues like strokes, heart attacks, etc. than Caucasian women. Same thing when you compare African American men to Caucasian men.