Bigd (now): “Let us also consider that ER visits only account for 3% of health care costs.” >>

DAR
Interesting:

You said: “57% of visits to the ER are… non emergent” and then you quote those Freakonomic fellows who say at your link:

“only 12 percent of E.R. visits are non-urgent…”

So which is it, 57% or 12%?

I think you can toss the Freakonomic guys. Their material is worthless. Here is a link to a little example of how bad they are. I’ll post it here in order to not clutter up your thread with something off topic. They are not a reputable source at all.

I think they may be distorting this quote:

“Calculating the Cost of Emergency Care”

“Nationwide, only 12% of ED visits require immediate hospital admission.”
PDF.

Bigd: “ER visits only account for 3% of health care costs.”>>

DAR
Define “health care costs.” Standard sources put US “healthcare costs” at 16% of GDP.

GDP is about $14.2 trillion.

16% of that is: $2.272 trillion.

3% of that is $68 billion.

Nothing to sneeze at. But I forgot that the 3% number came from those Freakonomic guys. Not a good source considering how bad they contradict your 57% claim.

Anyway, my point is, last minute ER care is not a good way to deliver comprehensive health care to a population. It’s expensive and ineffective for chronic conditions and provides zero for prevention etc.

D.

Set up some free clinics and let the doctors who support Obamacare work for low wages taking care of people who do not appreciate what they are getting because they deserve it…

The kid who went to see Harry Reid and was used as propaganda, his mother received all the medical care she needed. And she still died.

People die.

Secondly, the rights are for the states or the people. The people have the right to decide and if we could compete across state lines then we could break up the monopoly that politicians are not willing to mess with because of the POLITICAL DONATIONS.

Third, no your assessment is wrong. Your question still assumes use as in lots of people who end up needing SA treatment did not use to abuse. I clearly wrote that I did not USE them as in AT ALL. I cannot need treatment for substance abuse if I do not USE AT ALL the substances that lead to abuse.

No one is treated fro substance abuse if they have never used substances of abuse.

The cancer analogy is wrong as well as one is an item that people have control over and one is not. As I said, if you NEVER use substances of abuse you do not need SA treatment.

And why should single men pay for abortion services?

Learn what you are talking about before you jump in.

DAR
So you want the Federal government to override the will of the states and require that states let out of state insurance companies come in and sell what they want? What happened to “states rights?”

Bigd: “Why do I have to pay for substance abuse treatment when I do not drink alcohol or use drugs?”>>

DAR
Isn’t that like saying “why do I have to pay for cancer coverage when I’ve never had cancer?” Obviously lot’s of people who end up needing substance abuse treatment didn’t use to abuse these things.

D.

Only thirty seconds. Check it out:

[Edited by BD -- not linking to My Barak Obama. You can go there and find it if you want to see it]

Of the twenty I think the best are:

Angela’s Story

Is This Really the Way it Should Work?

Serve & Protect

The Kids Are Covered

Tough Choices

D.

DAR
I guess I wasn’t clear. That wasn’t my intent.

[article quote]
“ONLY 14 percent of ER visits involve patients without health insurance.”

DAR
ONLY?

Consider:

“New Data Say Uninsured Account for Nearly One-fifth of Emergency Room Visits

Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Press Office: July 15, 2009

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today released new data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample—the largest, all-payer emergency department database in the United States…

These data indicate that uninsured persons accounted for nearly one-fifth of the 120 million hospital-based emergency department visits in 2006.

“Our health care system has forced too many uninsured, rural and low-income Americans to depend on the emergency room for the care they need,” said Secretary Sebelius. “We cannot wait for reform that gives all Americans the high-quality, affordable care they need and helps prevent illnesses from turning into emergencies.”

Link

DAR
20% of 120 million is 24 million visits to the ER by the uninsured. That is not an insignificant number or cost.

D.

Blue Cross is set up in many states but you alluded to the problem. Set up to do things they require.

State mandates cost money. In MD insurance is required to cover over 40 items, many of which people do not need or want. Abortion services might be something that some people want but why do single males have to pay for it? Why do I have to pay for substance abuse treatment when I do not drink alcohol or use drugs?

The mandates are a part of the problem.

Consider that an average ER visit costs the hospital between $500 and $1000. Consider that ERs are NOT filled with the uninsured. A 2008 study showed that ONLY 14 percent of ER visits involve patients without health insurance. More than 50 percent of visits (most often for minor complaints) are for people who earn more than four times poverty level, and that 29 percent of the people going to ERs are not only insured, they also have regular doctors. Doctors that they can’t get in to see! FOX

Darrel, This is what you wrote:

What’s your solution, or do you think it’s best to let the sick drag themselves around in the street? That would work, and is favored by the hardcore conservative, but it’s a little embarrassing when international visitors come by.

It’s how they do it in Somalia.

Seems to me you were intimating that we leave people in the streets and that we do things like they do in Somalia…