PDA

View Full Version : Bums Bankrupting Healthcare System


Play The Man
07-13-2009, 06:06 PM
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07122009/news/regionalnews/hosp_itality_abue_178789.htm?page=0

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07122009/photos/009_alardo_robert.jpg

These bums are costing you a fortune.

Ricky Alardo, a homeless alcoholic nicknamed Ricky Ricardo, swigs cheap vodka by day at his favorite corner in Washington Heights, then calls an ambulance to chauffeur him to the hospital for a free meal and a warm place to sleep, courtesy of taxpayers who fund his Medicaid benefits.

For a chronic caller like Alardo -- who phones 911 four or five times a week -- the annual medical bill can be as high as $300,000. Over 13 years, the length of time he has been abusing the emergency room, he has cost the medical system an estimated $3.9 million.

In Midtown, another bum, Robert, has faked emergencies to get food and shelter in ERs about 40 or 50 times in the past three years -- and taxpayers pick up his tab, too.

Ricky and Robert are among the dozens of "frequent fliers" who clog the 911 system, tie up city ambulances, crowd emergency rooms and burn through Medicaid money.

An ambulance ride alone can run as much as $800, and an ER visit can cost, conservatively, $400 a pop, according to estimates from medical experts.

City officials don't track frequent fliers or the costs associated with their transport and hospital care, but anecdotal numbers from ER and EMS workers suggest there are dozens throughout the city.

A paramedic working downtown said some frequent fliers think they'll get faster treatment if they arrive at an ER by ambulance, rather than walk in.

"They know what to say to our call takers," he said.

Or they'll tell a bystander, "Oh, I have chest pains," the medic said.

"They take space. They take nursing resources. They're a drain on the staff's energy level and emotions," said Dr. Jeffrey Brenner, of Camden, NJ, who has studied the issue. "They're costing the system in both direct and hidden ways."

Brenner's research found Medicaid paid $46 million for the top 1 percent of Camden's frequent fliers, or 1,035 patients, during a five-year period.

A pilot program at Bellevue Hospital has cut ER visits by 67 percent among "high-cost" Medicaid patients by finding them their own doctors, housing and even cellphones to keep in touch with their doctors, according to a recent report by the United Hospital Fund.

NateR
07-13-2009, 06:23 PM
I think they should start criminally prosecuting those who abuse the 911 system.

Of course, then they'd just put them in jail, where they'd get free food and shelter on the taxpayer's dime as well.

Tyburn
07-13-2009, 07:25 PM
I think they should start criminally prosecuting those who abuse the 911 system.

Of course, then they'd just put them in jail, where they'd get free food and shelter on the taxpayer's dime as well.
The other option would be to refuse them treatment. :mellow:

If they werent seriously unwell they would recover on their own
If they were seriously unwell...well, that too might solve the ongoing part of the problem :blink:

I thought without insurance that US hospitals wouldnt treat you anyway :huh: Do you already have an unofficial national health service :ninja: :huh:

Play The Man
07-13-2009, 07:39 PM
The other option would be to refuse them treatment. :mellow:

If they werent seriously unwell they would recover on their own
If they were seriously unwell...well, that too might solve the ongoing part of the problem :blink:

I thought without insurance that US hospitals wouldnt treat you anyway :huh: Do you already have an unofficial national health service :ninja: :huh:

U.S. Hospitals are required, by law, to treat all people, insured or uninsured, for emergencies. There are over 10 million illegal aliens in the U.S. and they use the emergency rooms without any questions concerning citizenship. Veterans are eligible for medical treatment in the VA medical system. Medicaid helps cover poor people. S-CHIP helps cover children without insurance coverage. Medicare helps cover the elderly.

Tyburn
07-13-2009, 08:50 PM
U.S. Hospitals are required, by law, to treat all people, insured or uninsured, for emergencies. There are over 10 million illegal aliens in the U.S. and they use the emergency rooms without any questions concerning citizenship. Veterans are eligible for medical treatment in the VA medical system. Medicaid helps cover poor people. S-CHIP helps cover children without insurance coverage. Medicare helps cover the elderly.
Does the Government fund Medicaid, Medicare and S-CHIP...or do the private Hospitals actually use the money from private patients, to cover the cost of the unprivate ones.

If its the Government...then they must tax to cover that...in which case, you already have a National Health Service...it might be unofficial, but that will be the same principle under which ours works, except that ours taxes much higher to cover the cost of all privates.

If this is the case...then hate to tell you this, but Barack Obama easily has time in office to establish a full National Health Service, if he wanted to...you already have an underlying structure...I never thought that it was that close. Ive heard some of the nurses mention "free clinics" but...not a service that covers full health to people who bassically dont pay for it at all...at the extra tax cost of people already bloody paying private...thats...FUBAR :blink:

Play The Man
07-13-2009, 08:55 PM
The other option would be to refuse them treatment. :mellow:

If they werent seriously unwell they would recover on their own
If they were seriously unwell...well, that too might solve the ongoing part of the problem :blink:

The problem is that all it would take is for the physician to not treat the bum one time while he was truly having a heart attack and the bum would have a lawyer suing the physician for millions of dollars. The medics know the bum is faking it, the nurses know the bum is faking it, the physician knows the bum is faking it. The bum will never be held accountable; however, the physician will always be held accountable. Physicians spend billions of dollars per year on defensive medicine. If the bum claims to have chest pain he will automatically get an ECG, Chest x-ray, blood labs, oxygen, medication, nursing care, etc. The bum's theatrics will cost thousands of dollars per visit. Medical malpractice/tort reform is needed but will never happen because most of the legislators are lawyers and lawyers are one of the biggest sources of donations to the Democratic party.

Tyburn
07-13-2009, 09:07 PM
The problem is that all it would take is for the physician to not treat the bum one time while he was truly having a heart attack and the bum would have a lawyer suing the physician for millions of dollars. The medics know the bum is faking it, the nurses know the bum is faking it, the physician knows the bum is faking it. The bum will never be held accountable; however, the physician will always be held accountable. Physicians spend billions of dollars per year on defensive medicine. If the bum claims to have chest pain he will automatically get an ECG, Chest x-ray, blood labs, oxygen, medication, nursing care, etc. The bum's theatrics will cost thousands of dollars per visit. Medical malpractice/tort reform is needed but will never happen because most of the legislators are lawyers and lawyers are one of the biggest sources of donations to the Democratic party.
How can your Government, who doesnt subscribe to health care as being a basic human right, say that its illegal for a doctor not to treat someone. You offer your "bums" more then Our Government offers us...and we actually DO believe that health is a basic human right. Yet if we claim chest pains...we just get analysed by a docter...we're not treated to any special treatment unless we show signs that you cant fake!

So it sounds like there is no good reason for it to be made illegal.

May I also point out...isnt that unconstituional on the part of the bum? I mean, what Freedom does the doctor have to exercise his rights? without payment, why should he act?? What about the persuit of HIS happiness?? when he is forever worried about some bum dying and being sued?? What about his Freedom??

He is having legal bounds put on him that dont even have a constitutional basis.

Sounds like the Government are acting...unconstitutionally...surely they shouldnt be making laws that go against the thresholds of the consitution unless on a consitutional issue...Free Health Care has never been a consitutional issue...otherwise you would be like the United Kingdom with "free" health care for all through taxes.

There is being liberal...and there is being unconstitutional. The Democrats mustnt go SO liberal that they start to take the consitution as " a rought guideline" when its supposed to be something permanent and unchanging unless they want to rush through an ammendment everytime someone sneezes...good luck with that...they'd need Republican support to get that through Congress...and the Republicans shouldnt by their very nature be prepared to discuss ammendments unless generated by themselves :)

Play The Man
07-13-2009, 09:16 PM
Does the Government fund Medicaid, Medicare and S-CHIP...or do the private Hospitals actually use the money from private patients, to cover the cost of the unprivate ones.

If its the Government...then they must tax to cover that...in which case, you already have a National Health Service...it might be unofficial, but that will be the same principle under which ours works, except that ours taxes much higher to cover the cost of all privates.

If this is the case...then hate to tell you this, but Barack Obama easily has time in office to establish a full National Health Service, if he wanted to...you already have an underlying structure...I never thought that it was that close. Ive heard some of the nurses mention "free clinics" but...not a service that covers full health to people who bassically dont pay for it at all...at the extra tax cost of people already bloody paying private...thats...FUBAR :blink:

Medicare is funded by payroll taxes. Throughout your working lifetime, a Medicare tax is deducted from your paycheck; this is above-and-beyond the Social security tax, Federal income tax, and state income tax that is deducted from every paycheck. S-CHIP is funded by things like the tax on tobacco. Recently, the tax on tobacco was increased from a few cents per cigar, to 40 cents per cigar - an increase of several hundred percent. Cigar companies are now going out of business. Medicare severely limits reimbursement. Medicare sets a limit on what they will pay a hospital based upon the medical diagnosis. For example, Medicare will pay the hospital $50,000 (I am making this number up out of thin air to help illustrate the example) for a heart-bypass operation. If the patient actually uses up $100,000 in resources due to unforeseen complications, that is the hospital's tough luck - they have to "eat" the costs that aren't reimbursed. They pass the unreimbursed costs onto the people with private insurance. That is why, for instance, a person gets charged $10 for a 5 cent aspirin, or other ridiculous charges.

Crisco
07-13-2009, 10:01 PM
The only solution is to just kill all the homeless...

Play The Man
07-13-2009, 10:33 PM
There is being liberal...and there is being unconstitutional. The Democrats mustnt go SO liberal that they start to take the consitution as " a rought guideline" when its supposed to be something permanent and unchanging unless they want to rush through an ammendment everytime someone sneezes...good luck with that...they'd need Republican support to get that through Congress...and the Republicans shouldnt by their very nature be prepared to discuss ammendments unless generated by themselves :)

They don't call it a "rough guideline"; instead, they call it a "living document" (google it). The Constitution sets up a procedure for amendments; however, it is difficult to get an amendment passed. Liberal judges perform judicial activism and change the meaning of words in the Constitution; instead of interpreting the Constitution as the framer's intended it ("strict construction"), they say that times have changed and they redefine the terms. By redefining terms, they (liberal justices) can change the Constitution without actually amending it. The Supreme Court "found" a "right to privacy" in the Constitution, and presto-chango, after being a country for almost 200 years (it was 1973 at the time) abortion was now considered a "right" despite not being mentioned in the Constitution at all. Obama just nominated a justice to the Supreme Court; her hearings started today. I am sure she believes that the Constitution is a "living document". She will get a lifetime appointment if confirmed.

Tyburn
07-14-2009, 12:15 AM
They don't call it a "rough guideline"; instead, they call it a "living document" (google it). The Constitution sets up a procedure for amendments; however, it is difficult to get an amendment passed. Liberal judges perform judicial activism and change the meaning of words in the Constitution; instead of interpreting the Constitution as the framer's intended it ("strict construction"), they say that times have changed and they redefine the terms. By redefining terms, they (liberal justices) can change the Constitution without actually amending it. The Supreme Court "found" a "right to privacy" in the Constitution, and presto-chango, after being a country for almost 200 years (it was 1973 at the time) abortion was now considered a "right" despite not being mentioned in the Constitution at all. Obama just nominated a justice to the Supreme Court; her hearings started today. I am sure she believes that the Constitution is a "living document". She will get a lifetime appointment if confirmed.

No A consitution is not a "living Document" that would make it organic and ever changing. That sort of Law is called "common law" that is what countries like England have.

The Constitution is a fixed Document, supposed to be as true today as it was when it was written. Strictly speaking if that were true you wouldnt need to ammend it for obvious reasons...the ammendments are a common law addition to the perfect artical, thankfully most of them are not supposed to change what was written, but better explain what was written so that interpretation is correct.

You shouldnt go changing the pragmatics of the words, that, also is unconstituional because the whole idea is that its permanently fixed. Not only should there be no additions, it should ONLY be interpreted as it was intended by its authors.

if you ask me, what those judges do is tantamount to criminal. If the whole of America is based on an unchanging document...you change the document, you change America. If you change America, she is no longer America, because America is the original artical, interpreted the original way. Nothing more and nothing less.

We know how difficult interpretation can be. Look at Scripture, something fixed in exactly the same way...see how most of the problems with scripture is there is no one way of interpreting it. The difference with the consitution is there IS a correct way to interpret it. Any interpretations that do not match up to the founders, are invalid, wrong.

Thats kinda the basis of why I say, True Americans are always Christian. We know who wrote the Consitution, and we know what their beliefs were. They didnt need an established church, it was a given that the nation was Christian...and thats what most people live in denial about. There is no need to restrict worship, to have Church and State joined...if everyone is already Christian. Will a Church be needed during the Millenial Reign?? Of course not
:laugh:

Sorry...but those Judges IMHO are a threat to America. The Consitution doesnt need modernizing!!! Its perfect as it is. It spells out Truth....does Truth change???? No. What they are doing is SO wrong! I cant express how...angry I am about it actually!! Your own judiciary is distorying Her. Perhaps this is a very English View...forgive me...but the Government are supposed to be protecting your Freedoms...not removing them. That is their whole point of being. Its much like Monarchy...the Monarch is not only the embodiment of the nation, she is also the ultimate defence. She is supposed to provide and look after her Subjects....Monarchy or not, that is what your Government should be doing. They have no right to redefine anything. (unless they live under common law...and America DOES NOT) Where in the consitution does it say you may do that??? Its bad enough that you can formerly ammend it...but completely change its pragmatics...whenever you desire??? You cant do that!

Play The Man
07-14-2009, 12:51 AM
No A consitution is not a "living Document" that would make it organic and ever changing. That sort of Law is called "common law" that is what countries like England have.

The Constitution is a fixed Document, supposed to be as true today as it was when it was written. Strictly speaking if that were true you wouldnt need to ammend it for obvious reasons...the ammendments are a common law addition to the perfect artical, thankfully most of them are not supposed to change what was written, but better explain what was written so that interpretation is correct.

You shouldnt go changing the pragmatics of the words, that, also is unconstituional because the whole idea is that its permanently fixed. Not only should there be no additions, it should ONLY be interpreted as it was intended by its authors.

if you ask me, what those judges do is tantamount to criminal. If the whole of America is based on an unchanging document...you change the document, you change America. If you change America, she is no longer America, because America is the original artical, interpreted the original way. Nothing more and nothing less.

We know how difficult interpretation can be. Look at Scripture, something fixed in exactly the same way...see how most of the problems with scripture is there is no one way of interpreting it. The difference with the consitution is there IS a correct way to interpret it. Any interpretations that do not match up to the founders, are invalid, wrong.

Thats kinda the basis of why I say, True Americans are always Christian. We know who wrote the Consitution, and we know what their beliefs were. They didnt need an established church, it was a given that the nation was Christian...and thats what most people live in denial about. There is no need to restrict worship, to have Church and State joined...if everyone is already Christian. Will a Church be needed during the Millenial Reign?? Of course not
:laugh:

Sorry...but those Judges IMHO are a threat to America. The Consitution doesnt need modernizing!!! Its perfect as it is. It spells out Truth....does Truth change???? No. What they are doing is SO wrong! I cant express how...angry I am about it actually!! Your own judiciary is distorying Her. Perhaps this is a very English View...forgive me...but the Government are supposed to be protecting your Freedoms...not removing them. That is their whole point of being. Its much like Monarchy...the Monarch is not only the embodiment of the nation, she is also the ultimate defence. She is supposed to provide and look after her Subjects....Monarchy or not, that is what your Government should be doing. They have no right to redefine anything. (unless they live under common law...and America DOES NOT) Where in the consitution does it say you may do that??? Its bad enough that you can formerly ammend it...but completely change its pragmatics...whenever you desire??? You cant do that!

It sounds like you are a "strict constructionist" or "originalist". If you are angry now, you should do a little internet research on Robert Bork. He was nominated by Ronald Reagan for the Supreme Court in 1987. He was an "originalist" and was universally recognized as a brilliant legal mind. His political enemies couldn't and wouldn't argue with him about what the framers intended when they wrote the Constitution; instead, they politically smeared him, even going so far as to break into his account at a video rental company and list all the movies he had rented (nothing scandalous). In fact, his name is now used as a verb, meaning politically destroy, as in the following sentence: "Don't worry, he will not be confirmed, we will Bork him!" Clarence Thomas, a conservative justice, was Borked. At the eleventh hour of his confirmation, a former coworker named Anita Hill accused him of sexual harassment. When a Democratic president nominates a justice for a Supreme Court vacancy, they are generally treated with respect and confirmed by a large vote margin, including Republicans. When a Republican president nominates a justice, they are generally given the third degree and are voted against by a majority of Democratic senators.

MattHughesRocks
07-14-2009, 03:23 AM
And right away! :laugh:

But seriously.These aren't happy, healthy, normal people we are talking about.99.9 percent of them are mentally ill and/or grew up in a horrible environment that made them this way.Been used and abused throughout their childhood and then some..Yes, some take advantage but most of them...I mean really...would you trade places with them to get free health care or would you rather just be you and work and pay...seriously...your lives can be so much worse!


The only solution is to just kill all the homeless...

steigermeister
07-14-2009, 03:27 AM
I am just glad to see that not everyone is on this bandwagon of nationalized health care. It scares me with the track record of the government: social security, medicare and medicaid just to name a few. Watching the main stream news it is tough to tell.

Tyburn
07-14-2009, 12:57 PM
[FONT="Times New Roman"][SIZE="4"]It sounds like you are a "strict constructionist" or "originalist".

Yes. I think I absolutely am. I dont mind liberal interpretations of what is written when it can be constured that the founders might mean something more encompassing that what is the general norm. But I could never advocate nor condone changing the pragmatics, deliberatley, of such a document. That defeats the purpose of it.

You may aswell switch to common law...incidently, something that REALLY benefits whoever is in power at any one time...if you believe anything different. Your Consitution sets out boundaries that stop what could go wrong with common law. The only real con of an insitution is sooner or later you get people who dissagree with the founders view and say the consitution itself is a restriction on Freedom. I would answer them by saying, YES it is, and rightly so, that is exactly what it was and is supposed to be. Thats not a bad thing if you believe the founders got it right :laugh: