John Kulp writes:
> A completely stupid comment
Some of my relatives might dispute that.
> Someone who can pay. By definition.
An indigent is someone who can pay?
> The law covering this was passed
> well over 20 years ago and is posted in ERs saying they can't refuse
> to treat you if you can't pay.
They can't refuse to treat you, but they are not obligated to do it for free.
> No system is perfect for sure, BUT there is a lot more cutting edge
> research being done here than anywhere else including lots of
> experimental procedures.
Who pays for that?
> Britain, Scandinavia to mention a couple. Canada in North America.
Not France.
> Bullshit. You have no idea what you're talking about.
I go by what providers tell me. I suppose they could be lying, but I don't
see why they would do so.
> They do it to reduce costs, because it is a lot less expensive to
> do preventative care than treat someone really sick.
There's nothing prophylactic about an unnecessary test.
> And you call doing a test that
> would have easily caught my friend's blockage and saved his life
> unnecessary do you? His family doesn't think so.
My family doesn't think that $3000 for an emergency room visit is reasonable,
but you've already dismissed what my family thinks.
> It's called adequate testing ace before releasing them on the market.
It's called paranoia, beyond a certain point.
> If you want some fool in Europe to use them before adequate testing,
> feel free. One Swedish friend of my son's came over for a visit a few
> years ago and had some prescription he ran out of and wanted to see if
> he could get it here. When I showed it to my doctor, he was
> incredulous, saying no one prescribes that drug here because it is
> incredibly dangerous.
Which drug was it? |