Thread: IAs challenge U.S. hospital due to denial of free services

http://m3report.wordpress.com/2010/02/1 ... n-the-u-s/

La Jornada (Mexico City) 2/10/10

Immigrants challenge U.S. hospital due to denial of free services

Illegal immigrants from Mexico, El Salvador and Honduras, who have been receiving dialysis treatments due to renal insufficiency, have challenged a hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, asserting that it is condemning them “to dieâ€

And just what are they going to get when the hospital has to close its door?

And just what happens then too American citizens who need the services?

Repeal EMTALA, and then begin finding solutions to other increased health care costs for Americans, not illegal immigrants and their families!

EMTALA, Unfunded Emergency Room Care, and Health Care Reform

The same year it passed the "Immigration and Reform Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), the U.S. Congress also passed the "Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act" (EMTALA), requiring hospitals and ambulance services in the United States that accept payments under the Medicare program to provide emergency medical care regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay. There is no reimbursement provision. It would seem that the results of this unfunded mandate by the federal government may have led directly to the situation which we are now told requires "immediate health care reform" by Congress.

I heard a Congressman on CNN this morning defending the Democrats' 'public health care option' on the basis that "when uninsured people go to the emergency room and don't pay their bills, that cost is passed up by the hospitals to the insurance companies, which adds it onto the cost of insured people's premiums. Covering all the uninsured would solve this."

Below is the introduction of an explanation of EMTALA at Wikipedia with a link to the entire article. From this explanation, it seems repealing the " Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act" (EMTALA) might do a great deal more toward solving our current "health care cost crisis" than passing yet another federal health care mandate.

"There is also debate about the extent to which EMTALA has led to cost-shifting and higher rates for insured or paying hospital patients, thereby contributing to the high overall rate of medical inflation in the U.S."

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_ ... _Labor_Act

"The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, EMTALA) is a United States Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.

"EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals", i.e., 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., with the exception of the Shriners Hospitals for Children, Indian Health Service hospitals, and Veterans Affairs hospitals. The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004,[1] or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients.[2][3]

"The cost of emergency care required by EMTALA is not directly covered by the federal government. Because of this, the law has been criticized by some as an unfunded mandate.[4] Similarly, it has attracted controversy for its impacts on hospitals, and in particular, for its possible contributions to an emergency medical system that is "overburdened, underfunded and highly fragmented".[5] MORE THAN HALF OF ALL EMERGENCY ROOM CARE IN THE U.S. NOW GOES UNCOMPENSATED. Hospitals write off such care as charity or bad debt for tax purposes. Increasing financial pressures on hospitals in the period since EMTALA's passage have caused consolidations and closures, so the number of emergency rooms is decreasing despite increasing demand for emergency care.[6] There is also debate about the extent to which EMTALA has led to cost-shifting and higher rates for insured or paying hospital patients, thereby contributing to the high overall rate of medical inflation in the U.S."

and

Paying The Price For Illegal Immigrant Care

Investor's Business Daily
August 24, 2009 Monday

Last decade, the Clinton administration added teeth to a little-known Health and Human Services Department regulation mandating that hospitals provide emergency treatment even to illegals.

Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA, hospitals can't even ask for a patient's immigration status or ability to pay prior to delivering treatment. They also can't keep such uninsured patients waiting, even if their problem isn't an emergency. Nor can they discharge them until they're fully stabilized and have safe transportation.

More, hospitals must post EMTALA signs in Spanish and English. The law isn't limited to ERs. Hospitals must accept illegals at any facility on campus -- including outpatient clinics and doctor's offices -- located within 250 yards of the main buildings.

Hospitals end up treating uninsured illegals for the sniffles and other nonurgent care, and pass that exorbitant cost on to the insured, the Government Accountability Office has found. Resulting overcrowding leads to delays in "care for patients with true emergency needs."

This unfunded federal mandate has placed a heavy and unfair financial burden on more than 1,500 hospitals across the country, according to HHS data, costing billions in unpaid bills by some estimates.

entire article at:
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-168074-emtala.html
(Posted August 11, 2009)

ICE ... get on the stick and deport these whining people who aren't even supposed to be our country doing anything, let alone receiving medical treatment least of all without paying for it and bankrupting our hospitals.

GET THEM OUT OUT OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!

Why is this in the Mexico City news?

I am livid. As a Georgian taxpayer and also a State employee forced to take unpaid furlough days because of budget cuts, the very last thing I want my state to spend my tax dollars on is non-emergency treatment for illegal aliens.

All kidney dialysis patients who are legal are automatically covered by Social Security and Medicare. So the unpaid dialysis is only for those not authorized to be here.

They need to go back to their home countries and complain to someone who cares.

Originally Posted by GaPatriot

Why is this in the Mexico City news?

I am livid. As a Georgian taxpayer and also a State employee forced to take unpaid furlough days because of budget cuts, the very last thing I want my state to spend my tax dollars on is non-emergency treatment for illegal aliens.

All kidney dialysis patients who are legal are automatically covered by Social Security and Medicare. So the unpaid dialysis is only for those not authorized to be here.

They need to go back to their home countries and complain to someone who cares.

Exactement, Mon Ami!!

I heard a Congressman on CNN this morning defending the Democrats' 'public health care option' on the basis that "when uninsured people go to the emergency room and don't pay their bills, that cost is passed up by the hospitals to the insurance companies, which adds it onto the cost of insured people's premiums. Covering all the uninsured would solve this."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Getting free care at the local hospital is not limited to illegal aliens. Poor citizens also get free care, even people that can afford insurance simply forgo the insurance and ask free free care at the emergency room.

Those of us with insurance pay for this free care. It's cost is in our insurance premium or hospital bill.

The only solution is to FORCE everyone to buy insurance and minimize "free" care to minimal treatment to legal citizens and even less service to illegal aliens.

The local Franklin Co. Sheriff arrested an illegal alien for drunk driving, after a terrible wreck on I-270. The Sheriff is paying for his five months of hospitalization and he has another operation scheduled. This cost isn't paid by my insurance premium, but my tax dollars.

I know there are people screaming they shouldn't be forced to buy health insurance, but when they get sick, I'M SUPPOSE TO PAY FOR IT ?

If you can afford it, but refuse to buy insurance, how will you pay for major medical needs ? Just what is your plan, a bake sale ? You may need over $500,000 dollars. You can't sell that many cookies.

Originally Posted by magyart

I heard a Congressman on CNN this morning defending the Democrats' 'public health care option' on the basis that "when uninsured people go to the emergency room and don't pay their bills, that cost is passed up by the hospitals to the insurance companies, which adds it onto the cost of insured people's premiums. Covering all the uninsured would solve this."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Getting free care at the local hospital is not limited to illegal aliens. Poor citizens also get free care, even people that can afford insurance simply forgo the insurance and ask free free care at the emergency room.

Those of us with insurance pay for this free care. It's cost is in our insurance premium or hospital bill.

The only solution is to FORCE everyone to buy insurance and minimize "free" care to minimal treatment to legal citizens and even less service to illegal aliens.

The local Franklin Co. Sheriff arrested an illegal alien for drunk driving, after a terrible wreck on I-270. The Sheriff is paying for his five months of hospitalization and he has another operation scheduled. This cost isn't paid by my insurance premium, but my tax dollars.

I know there are people screaming they shouldn't be forced to buy health insurance, but when they get sick, I'M SUPPOSE TO PAY FOR IT ?

If you can afford it, but refuse to buy insurance, how will you pay for major medical needs ? Just what is your plan, a bake sale ? You may need over $500,000 dollars. You can't sell that many cookies.

Who pays for your medical care when you get sick, magyart?

As a small business owner I buy health insurance for my wife, myself and all the employees. My two daughters that are over 18 yrs old are on an individual plan, seperate from the company sponsored plan.

After wages, health insurance is the 2nd largest expense. It's not unusual for cost increases of 20 - 30%.

Originally Posted by magyart

As a small business owner I buy health insurance for my wife, myself and all the employees. My two daughters that are over 18 yrs old are on an individual plan, seperate from the company sponsored plan.

After wages, health insurance is the 2nd largest expense. It's not unusual for cost increases of 20 - 30%.

Okay. So where does the money come from to pay for the health insurance you buy for yourself, wife and employees? Your business right? From your revenues right? From your customers right? And then under our present income-based tax scheme, you deduct the cost of that health insurance as an expense from your revenues that were paid by your customers on your company income tax return right? So, who is really paying your health insurance? Isn't it your customers and taxpayers, not you, who is paying for your health insurance?

Now, lets take away both of those components. Lets say you no longer have a business and enjoy no revenue from customers to pay for health insurance for yourself and your wife. Lets also say since you no longer have a business, you are no longer able to deduct the cost of your health insurance on your income taxes. Lets also say that wherever you and your wife and children work no health insurance is provided by the employers.

Now who pays for your health insurance? Now, you pay for your health insurance without any right to deduct the cost of your health insurance on your income taxes. Now, under this scenario, you really are paying for your own health insurance. Now, lets add in Obama Care. Under the Obama Care scenario, do you really want the US government forcing you to purchase health insurance for you and your wife and 2 children? Do you really want the US government telling you how much health insurance you'll buy at what price and telling you what benefits you will or will not receive in return? Do you really want to be taxed if at any time in the future you can't afford health insurance on the levels and at the price the US government has set by law? Do you want to be facing a jail sentence for dissenting to pay the tax fines imposed upon you, your wife or your children because you didn't want or couldn't afford to purchase health insurance for any variety of valid reasons?

Today, no one is forcing your business to provide health insurance for yourself, your wife and your employees. Today, no one is fining you for not providing health insurance for your employees, if at some point you choose not to. Today, no one is forcing business owners or non-business owners to do anything regarding health insurance. These are valuable and precious liberties, part of what many of US believe is freedom from the scourge of socialist and authoritarian control over businesses and individuals by our governments.

Why would you or anyone else want to forfeit those liberties and that freedom on the myth of saving a few bucks on health insurance costs? Do you really think that Obama Care will reduce the costs of operating your business? No, it won't. It will increase your costs of operating your business through both higher premiums and higher taxes with fewer benefits and services in return. Why would you want to support that?

That's why Obama Care failed both on principle and by the numbers.

As a small business owner interested in reducing your operating costs, you may want to look into the FairTax which actually would reduce your operating costs, 7.65% on your payrolls, at least 15% to 20% on your business to business purchases of goods and services, save you at least 25% of your gross profits or the retained earnings of your company, plus at least 25% or more on whatever payments you make to yourself in salary, compensation, profit and/or dividends, depending on how your company is organized. You might also look at the benefits this new tax system would offer to your employees and children and parents, friends and/or relatives, because it saves them 25% to 41% of their gross wages including the FairTax Rebate to exempt their spending on essentials, and frees them from the scourge of reporting the personal and private details of their lives to the US government every year on a tax return.

For a family of 4, earning average household income of $50k to $60k a year, the FairTax puts $16,440 a year back into their pockets to spend as they freely choose and frees up at least 25% of average taxable retained earnings for all employers enabling both business owners and individuals to address their health insurance and medical care as they see fit, without any interference, intrusion or mandates from the US government.

That seems far preferable to me. With the FairTax in place, then fixing a few tweeks in our laws, like removing the insurance industry Sherman-AntiTrust Act exemption from the McCarran-Ferguson Act and opening up true interstate commerce in that industry, plus addressing the pre-existing conditions issue uniformly with a national prohibition that defines and qualifies the issue fairly and reasonably for the insured, we'll see the issue of health insurance resolve itself.

www.fairtax.org