Here's some good news..........NOT!

[JakeEMTP]

Apparently, Pres. Bush thinks it's a good idea to cut funding to Medicare/Medicaid. Cutting funding to hospitals, ambulance services etc, hurting the very people it was designed to help. At the same time, payment to insurance companies will remain unchanged which really didn't surprise me :roll: .

http://www.ems1.com/products/consultingand...rticles/349463/

At least he isn't going to ask for more money for the war in Iraq.

How out of touch is this Government with reality? Small services that rely solely on Medicare payment to cover 60% of the actual costs will close. Local Governments will have to tax the citizens or have know EMS service at all, a good thing to come out of this proposal.

Maybe if some of the money paid to Fire Dept's could be transferred to EMS to help keep it afloat. I don't know. This just pissed me off and I thought I'd share with you all.

[aussiephil]

Dont we, as First World citizens, who are always concerned with the plight of the third world, have a responsibility to those who live in our country who are less fortunate?

In my opinion healthcare, including ambulatory pre hospital care, is a basic right of ALL people & should not be run 'for profit', nor should patients be billed for it.

How can we in First World countries tell the third world what to do when we cant even look after our own?

Phil

[JPINFV]

Dont we, as First World citizens, who are always concerned with the plight of the third world, have a responsibility to those who live in our country who are less fortunate?

In my opinion healthcare, including ambulatory pre hospital care, is a basic right of ALL people & should not be run 'for profit', nor should patients be billed for it.

How can we in First World countries tell the third world what to do when we cant even look after our own?

Phil

The problem with declaring it a "right" is that it's a "right" that demands work from someone else. Let's look at another right [at least under the US constitution] that people hate 99% of the time. Jury duty. How many people love getting that jury summons notice in the mail? Not many. In large part because people don't want to be sitting around not getting paid. Similarly, providers are not going to be happy providing uncompensated care and people, especially tax payers [top 50% of wage earners pay 95% of all federal tax revenue], are not going to be happy paying more taxes.

As far as billing, who decides which procedures and treatments are deemed a necessity? If someone has money, shouldn't they be able to devote more of their money to healthcare and receive more services and bang for their buck then someone who places less of a priority on healthcare? What about people who engage in high risk activities ('extreme sports' or legal drugs like tobacco smoking)? Shouldn't they be expected to provide for their own care when that care is needed as a result of their activities? Alternatively, why should my tax dollars go to pay some smoker's COPD bills?

Finally, why should we let the same government who can't control the borders or provide appropriate staffing for the Department of Motor Vehicles decide who gets what care when?

[Richard B the EMT]

JPINFV wrote

Let's look at another right [at least under the US constitution] that people hate 99% of the time. Jury duty. How many people love getting that jury summons notice in the mail? Not many. In large part because people don't want to be sitting around not getting paid.

Boston, or Massachusetts, doesn't pay jurors?

Here in NYC, NY, we get paid, and thank you for the reminder: I haven't gotten my check from the Court Clerk for my services rendered 3 months ago. I AM supposed to be paid.

[JPINFV]

I've only served jury duty twice, and both of those were in Southern California. California doesn't pay for the first day. After the first day, you do get a rather small sum of reimbursement as well as a travel allowance. Both of those, though, still require you to be actually brought back after the first day. Both of my two summons ended with the majority of the jury pool being excused either before or at lunch time.

[Dustdevil]

Isn't it a bit ironic that, in a discussion of how badly the government is screwing up healthcare, somebody would have the naiveté to suggest that the answer is more government?

[Richard B the EMT]

I've served Jury Duty several times, and the only time I was actually empaneled was Grand Jury, 4 weeks worth. I got paid for all times I was there. As the EMS is a large agency, they can, and do, claim the jury payment back, as I am actually being paid by the department for that time in Jury Duty. (I get my regular wages from the department, and reimburse them for the jury duty, minus a pre-set "travel costs" payment.)

Nowadays, they have a "telephone standby" system. They issue you an ID number, and you call a toll free line. If your number is in the batch, say, "J100100 to J100300" and your number is "J100155", the tape will tell you which courthouse you're to report to, and at what time. There are at least 3 court houses in Queens County, where I go, as a Queens, NY resident.

They let you know at least 3 weeks in advance when you go onto "standby", and now, there are no employment exemptions, like being a teacher, a LEO, or a Volley fire fighter or Volley EMT/Paramedic. They actually took the Mayor of NYC for a jury (he served!) right after the rules got changed.

If you are self employed, have child or elder care issues, or no longer live in the county (with proof) those MIGHT be the only exemptions, on a case by case basis.

[JPINFV]

Similar rules applied in California. There was no occupation exemption besides police officers (but you could freely reschedule once, twice if the jury managers are nice), but financial hardship, required to care for a family member, living out of state/county, etc all qualify for exemption. There is also a phone system, but your required to be 'free' for a week if you choose that option. Besides that, the rule is 1 day/1 trial. You can only be required to report once a year and a trial gets you off the hook for 3 years.

[aussiephil]

Isn't it a bit ironic that, in a discussion of how badly the government is screwing up healthcare, somebody would have the naiveté to suggest that the answer is more government?

Dust,

you know I respect your opinion, however, what we are really talking about here is the underlying issue of the availability of ALL health, from pre hospital to intra hospital & outpatient care. I dont deny that governments are incompetent, but remove that. We have a social responsibility to ensure that healthcare is available to all, not just those who can afford it.

To compare healthcare to jury duty is a complete nonsense. There is nothing similar about them. Basic healthcare, the right to live your life knowing that in a first world country you have the best doctors etc & that they are available if needed is a primary need. Why is it that we have people like Bono (from U2) Bill Gates & Co comtributing millions of dollars to third world countries to provide basic healthcare FREE? Because they recognise that it is the only way to improve how those people will live in the years to come.

Maslow, in his heirachy of needs tells us that firstly we, as humans need Food Water Shelter & Clothing, then we need Security, the basic need for Social Secuity in a Family & society that protects against Hunger, Violence & protects wellbeing.

This tells us that it is a basic right, second only to the more basic of needs.

Would it be right to say bill a person for the time it takes for a Police Officer to write a ticket as well as being fined for it?

Do police departments run at a profit? No & nor they should. Same with Health departments. Let us do what we should be doing & treat patients without them having the fear of an exorbidant invoice arriving in a couple of weeks time.

[JPINFV]

To compare healthcare to jury duty is a complete nonsense.

Not exactly. The vast majority of constitutional rights in the United States are so called "negative rights." Freedom of speech is not a carte blanch right, in part, because it is not written anything like "Citizens shall have freedom of speech." If it was, for example, then EMT-City Admin would be violating my rights by editing or deleting any of my posts. Instead, it is specifically written that the US government shall not make a law abridging freedom of speech. Therefore, only the government is not allowed to curtail a person's free speech. By wording it this way, the only burden of restriction is on the government.

One of the few, if not the only, positive right, is jury duty. By requiring jurors, the right requires the work of other people. It is in this sense that a "right" to health care is comparable to jury duty. Health care can not just be made into existence similar to negative rights, but can only come into being by requiring the work of someone else.

This tells us that it is a basic right, second only to the more basic of needs.

While I am, arguable, light in the psychology department, just because one person says something doesn't mean that it's the end all and be all in terms of how a government should function.

Would it be right to say bill a person for the time it takes for a Police Officer to write a ticket as well as being fined for it?

Well, there are police departments that are starting to charge for calls after a certain number of calls every year.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,324650,00.html

Do police departments run at a profit? No & nor they should. Same with Health departments. Let us do what we should be doing & treat patients without them having the fear of an exorbidant invoice arriving in a couple of weeks time.

If a government department can cover their costs on their own, then there is no reason why they should not do so. Not all police services are free [or else the FBI/California DOJ/ and UC, Irvine police department owes me $100 for my background checks]. Charging for services rendered does make sense.