AUSTIN, Texas – Just nine people accounted for nearly 2,700 of the emergency room visits in the Austin area during the past six years at a cost of $3 million to taxpayers and others, according to a report. The patients went to hospital emergency rooms 2,678 times from 2003 through 2008, said the report from the nonprofit Integrated Care Collaboration, a group of health care providers who care for low-income and uninsured patients.
“What we’re really trying to do is find out who’s using our emergency rooms … and find solutions,” said Ann Kitchen, executive director of the group, which presented the report last week to the Travis County Healthcare District board.
The average emergency room visit costs $1,000. Hospitals and taxpayers paid the bill through government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, Kitchen said. Eight of the nine patients have drug abuse problems, seven were diagnosed with mental health issues and three were homeless. Five are women whose average age is 40, and four are men whose average age is 50, the report said, the Austin American-Statesman reported Wednesday. “It’s a pretty significant issue,” said Dr. Christopher Ziebell, chief of the emergency department at University Medical Center at Brackenridge, which has the busiest ERs in the area. Solutions include referring some frequent users to mental health programs or primary care doctors for future care, Ziebell said.
“They have a variety of complaints,” he said. With mental illness, “a lot of anxiety manifests as chest pain.”
HA! Try THAT with socialized health care!
#68 – So you think that a doctor should be forced to treat you regardless of being paid. That’s slavery. You are one sick person.
#55 my point was that the expected savings from socialized medicine will not appear, because any mythical savings will be swamped by an aging population, as well as more services used by the younger population.
Also the 47 million uninsured is a bogus number and the real number is closer to 10-12 million, when you exclude illegal immigrants, people who are eligible for Medicaid, and people who can afford it.
I suspect your $2500 bill will drop if you were to go a second time, as the first time ate up your deductible. Sounds like a ripoff.
I think we should look at increasing the number of doctors in this country. If someone could shut up the AMA, and we honored medical training in other countries, then costs would come down. Right now, that surgeon in France you talk about, if he wanted to come practice in America, he has to pass all exams and do 3 years of residency, plus residency in surgery.
Also, lawsuit reform would help.
We also need to look at medical licensing. Having a level below MD would lower costs, and also be in line with reality where nurses or residents are providing treatment. Why shouldn’t Walmart be doing stitches?
#72, to be fair, Paddy, the doctor is going to be paid. But under a single-payer universal system that many advocate for the U.S. the payment amount will be dictated by the single dominant buyer of health care, the government.
Misanthropic Scott, I just want to add that we could have a debate about what makes for prudent policy concerning health care, and you’d probably be surprised with what I agree with you about. I just have strong disagreement with any claims that those policies be based on some notion of rights to the things that other produce.
Also, having studied how decades of bad policies all but destroyed agricultural output in the developing world, I have a hard time being enthusiastic about things I see as having the potential to create similar types of disincentives to health care services output.
#67
* We have a higher percentage of unnecessary surgeries performed than anywhere else in the world, especially cesarean sections.
So you are wanting to deny healthcare from people who want it?
* We have so many C-sections in fact that our babies are now being born with heads too large to fit through a vagina. We are breeding a subspecies of human that cannot give birth naturally.
So you believe in survival of the fittest?
How does that fit with your opposition to those who can afford healthcare get and those who can’t don’t?
Are you sure you don’t want to join the civilized world?
Straw-Man.
#74 okay. Where does the money come from? The gov’t has got to go to SOMEONE, gun in hand, and take from him so Scott can get his checkup…
In the end, Scott thinks he has more of right to that persons money than that person has..
#75 Sea lawyer, how do you feel about water, electricity and/or telephone as services that a modern society should have right to?
There is no right or wrong answer here but curious if you think the above is a yes, whereas medical care is no or if every service is a no.
For instance, today I (we) pay taxes specifically for rural areas to have access rights to telephone service (things that others produce).
#77, well, presumably, we’ve all paid taxes in. The problem comes when I get all of mine back from various credits, and you don’t. As long as we are going to have a tax to pay, it should be proportionally equivalent and not allow for any exemptions.
#79 That doesn’t address the idea that a person has a right to take from others (thus, more of a right to his property than the owner).
#80, you are the one who is saying that transfer payments are akin to slavery. While I have some sympathy for that position on a purely philosophical level, I certainly don’t agree with it fully.
For example, there is virtually no way today that deep space exploration would be economically viable privately, so I have no problem with the government engaging in an activity that the market cannot. Are we slaves then to the aerospace companies who are contracted in this effort since they are being funded through our tax dollars?
#81 Not relevant to what I’m talking about. Closer would be that an individual has a “right” to go into outer space…
That is what Scott is saying.
#78, well, I suppose we both need to go back and clarify what we both mean by “rights.”
If we are talking about the fundamental, unalienable rights that from which our liberties are based, then I would say no. I take people who refer to health care as a “basic human right” to be taking this position.
If we are instead going to talk about the “bundle” of rights held by people, example: the small bundle of usages rights held by a renter, even though he is not the actual property owner. Then I suppose I would agree, because in the situation you described, you are paying a tax to acquire access to those services.
# 83 Sea Lawyer said, “If we are talking about the fundamental, unalienable rights that from which our liberties are based, then I would say no. I take people who refer to health care as a “basic human right” to be taking this position.”
Correct, that what these nut jobs are talking about and what I addressed. I’ve yet to hear Scott explain how he has more of a right to my earned money than I do. I don’t really expect a lucid answer though.
#82, Paddy-O, of course you have a right to go into outer space. You won’t be trespassing on any property that I am aware of. However, exercising that right requires you to possess the means to do so.
This doesn’t mean that by not having those means that somebody else is depriving you of your right. If this was the case, then my right to own property implies that other be required to provide me with property lest they be depriving me of that right (interestingly enough, that is the same flawed logic that is used to say “because you are not giving me money to pay for an abortion, you are taking away my right to get an abortion”).
This entire topic points out the basic difference between classical liberals and new liberals, where classical liberals view fundamental rights as being negative, and new liberals view them as being positive.
# 85 Sea Lawyer said, “This entire topic points out the basic difference between classical liberals and new liberals, where classical liberals view fundamental rights as being negative, and new liberals view them as being positive.”
Yes, exactly. This is where the insanity creeps in. Nothing new though. Countries that have/had enforced communism played the same card.
#82 “..If we are talking about the fundamental, unalienable rights that from which our liberties are based, then I would say no. I take people who refer to health care as a “basic human right” to be taking this position…”
I agree that providing Healthcare is not a basic human right under today’s standards and alongside the liberties stipulated in the Constitution.
I’ve never referenced whether Healthcare is inalienable, Constitutional or otherwise. The question I pose is whether Healthcare should be provided broadly to all Americans for the betterment of our society.
You said..”Yes…..because in the situation you described, you are paying a tax to acquire access to those services…”
Actually, I’m not. I’m a city dweller paying a tax for OTHERS in urban areas to acquire those services. I already have those services and pay for them out of my own pocket. Still, I agree that for the betterment of society, I accept those taxes. I find Healthcare to be similar.
So.. I’m not sure if we are in agreement or not on the issue of providing Healthcare for all Americans, not just access to it. We clearly all have access to it, provided one can pay for it. In reality, public schooling is a better analogy. It is not only accessible, it also FREE to use.
It seems the issue here gets convoluted when we go down the path of definitions when the simple question can be, should basic Healthcare be provided to Americans as basic public school education is provided now.
#87, as I’ve said, depending on the policy decisions that are made, I can envision the possibility that a single payer system, with that single payer facing escalating costs from an aging population requiring greater numbers of services due to lifestyle, will actually disincentivize the growth in production of health services.
#72 – Paddy-tr-ZERO-ll,
So you think that a doctor should be forced to treat you regardless of being paid. That’s slavery. You are one sick person.
No. I think a doctor should be paid a salary by the government. This would be preferable to rewarding them for unnecessary surgery, prescribing the medicine for which the drug companies make the most, regardless of whether it’s right for you, and turning away patients because they are out of a job at the moment or are working 3 part-time jobs at the moment.
Take a quick look at how a whole new generation, many of whom are college grads, must now get their health care. These are kids of middle class or better families, fresh out of college and newly in the work force. These are the people you will be counting on to lead the country in your old age.
You should hope they don’t remember how you’ve treated them.
For Uninsured Young Adults, Do-It-Yourself Health Care
# 90 Misanthropic Scott said, “No. I think a doctor should be paid a salary by the government. ”
And, where does the gov’t get the $? Do you think it is a basic human right like Free speech?
#73 – MikeN,
#55 my point was that the expected savings from socialized medicine will not appear, because any mythical savings will be swamped by an aging population, as well as more services used by the younger population.
Interesting. How do you figure this based only on the relative increase in caring for the old? You have completely ignored the cost of caring for everyone who is not on medicare, medicaid, or social security. Do you think there is no cost to society for this? Check your source again. See where it lists the costs of health insurance for the working people. It doesn’t.
Also the 47 million uninsured is a bogus number and the real number is closer to 10-12 million, when you exclude illegal immigrants, people who are eligible for Medicaid, and people who can afford it.
CDC says 43.6 million uninsured: http://tinyurl.com/3d39us
US Census Bureau says 46.6 million and rising: http://tinyurl.com/qx2pm
Where’s your 10-12 million number coming from?
The census numbers mention naturalized citizens and various races, but do not mention illegal aliens. I find it hard to imagine that they are included but not mentioned in the census.
#89, fair enough. I honestly can’t predict how things would go if we moved to a single-payer system. I just know based on observations from elsewhere that while policies don’t necessarily start out causing unanticipated mischief, that is exactly what ends up happening in many cases. I don’t dispute that there could be great benefits to a new health care system that is more similar to the model you propose, I just don’t know that we’ve identified what all the trade-offs are going to be either.
And I don’t trust the political forces who enact these things to do a very good job at identifying them either, if history is to be any guide.
#76 – LibertyLoser,
* We have a higher percentage of unnecessary surgeries performed than anywhere else in the world, especially cesarean sections.
So you are wanting to deny healthcare from people who want it?
No. I want to provide quality care, not unnecessary procedures. Why is that hard to understand?
* We have so many C-sections in fact that our babies are now being born with heads too large to fit through a vagina. We are breeding a subspecies of human that cannot give birth naturally.
So you believe in survival of the fittest?
How does that fit with your opposition to those who can afford healthcare get and those who can’t don’t?
Talk about a strawman. Social Darwinism is not the issue here. Darwin himself warned strongly against trying to form a society based on natural selection.
What I am saying is that we don’t want to encourage evolution toward a species that cannot survive by providing bad medical care.
Are you sure you don’t want to join the civilized world?
Straw-Man.
Perhaps. So? Do you really consider our system of killing the poor to be civilized? I don’t.
How about pumping air through the meat that was once a human being until the money runs out and only then finally pulling the plug? Is that civilized?
#77 – Paddy-mega-tr-ZERO-ll,
#74 okay. Where does the money come from? The gov’t has got to go to SOMEONE, gun in hand, and take from him so Scott can get his checkup…
In the end, Scott thinks he has more of right to that persons money than that person has..
You really should pay your taxes before the IRS man shows up with a gun.
I am willing to pay more taxes for health care. I can pay them with a part of the money I currently pay for health insurance. Being willing to put one’s money where one’s mouth is is a big part of what makes one a liberal.
Liberal means generous.
Conservative means opposed to change.
Look ’em up. They’re not opposites. The opposite of liberal is stingy. The opposite of conservative is progressive. That’s just language though.
Most of those who call themselves conservative these days are really neocon radical right wing nutjobs, like yourself, and very much not like Sea Lawyer.
Scott, it is basic math. If the population is aging, and this is the part that uses more health care, then you can expect higher costs.
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/20/the-myth-of-the-46-million
#79 – Sea Lawyer,
#77, well, presumably, we’ve all paid taxes in. The problem comes when I get all of mine back from various credits, and you don’t. As long as we are going to have a tax to pay, it should be proportionally equivalent and not allow for any exemptions.
I would certainly agree about removal of all exemptions as well as removal of all forms of tax free income. It would also remove the need for the stupid AMT. That said, I’d prefer to tax consumption rather than on income. If we must tax income though, I do support a progressive tax. I’m willing to pay more than those who make less than me. I think they can ill afford it, especially those who make a lot less.
# 96 Misanthropic Scott said, “I am willing to pay more taxes for health care.”
YOU are willing. Keep dodging the issue of confiscating others money. You sound very funny. Can’t answer simple questions because you know what it would make you out to be. LOL
#80 – Paddy-tr-0-ll,
#79 That doesn’t address the idea that a person has a right to take from others (thus, more of a right to his property than the owner).
People take my money today and I don’t get much say about giving it to oil companies and the military and all forms of corporate welfare and ….
#82 – Ole-King-Troll,
#81 Not relevant to what I’m talking about. Closer would be that an individual has a “right” to go into outer space…
That is what Scott is saying.
Don’t put words in my mouth. I choose my words pretty carefully most of the time and have never said that.
What I am saying, to clarify in such a way that even you should be able to understand though you’ll still disagree and Sea Lawyer may even become convinced is that … wait for it …
We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Not having health care is a clear violation of the first, and quite possibly all three. Sea Lawyer, does that ring true to you?
Troll, why not go out in the sun? With luck, you’ll turn to stone.
#84 – Ole King Troll,
I’ve yet to hear Scott explain how he has more of a right to my earned money than I do.
I don’t. In fact, it’s a good bet that I make more than you and would have to pay more than you. If not, then what I’m saying is that by paying taxes, I buy civilization.
When you can explain to me why Halliburton has more right to both of our money than either of us, then we’ll talk. Until then, all I can say is that if you think you can decide on how the government spends every tax dollar you pay, then you haven’t been paying attention.
So, are you a slave to Halliburton?