If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Were you severely injured in a car accident? Oh wow, lost a foot and internal bleeding? Well I hope you have the right insurance so we can save your foot and your life or this could be a very awkward ambulance ride   (npr.org) divider line 111
    More: Sick, internal bleeding, accidents, private hospital, emergency medicines, emergency physician, trauma center, Uniformed Services University, public hospital  
•       •       •

9615 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Feb 2014 at 10:43 AM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



111 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-20 09:28:33 AM  
Better have DocWagon Platinum or your ass is walkin'.
 
2014-02-20 09:38:58 AM  
Actually,subby, you got itexactly backwards, which is why it's so scary. Private hospitalswithout trauma centers are keeping critically ill patients  with insurance in their hospitals for longer time before transferring them to a trauma center to get the right kind of treatment. That means that if you have insurance, you're actually going to do  worse, because the admitting hospital you get taken to might want to keep you there for a little while so they can bill you. On the other hand, if you  don't have insurance you're not worth anything to them so they transfer you up the chain to the trauma center much more quickly, rather than eat costs from treating an uninsured person. And studies have shown that failure to be transported to a trauma center puts you at a greater risk.

In other words,  having insurance is a bad thing in this circumstance, because of hospital greediness.
 
2014-02-20 09:42:22 AM  

Rincewind53: Actually,subby, you got itexactly backwards, which is why it's so scary. Private hospitalswithout trauma centers are keeping critically ill patients  with insurance in their hospitals for longer time before transferring them to a trauma center to get the right kind of treatment. That means that if you have insurance, you're actually going to do  worse, because the admitting hospital you get taken to might want to keep you there for a little while so they can bill you. On the other hand, if you  don't have insurance you're not worth anything to them so they transfer you up the chain to the trauma center much more quickly, rather than eat costs from treating an uninsured person. And studies have shown that failure to be transported to a trauma center puts you at a greater risk.

In other words,  having insurance is a bad thing in this circumstance, because of hospital greediness.


Thanks, Obama.
 
2014-02-20 09:43:28 AM  

Diogenes: Thanks, Obama.


Yeah, what an A-hole.
 
2014-02-20 10:07:36 AM  

doglover: Better have DocWagon Platinum or your ass is walkin'.


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-02-20 10:26:45 AM  
Yeah that was one of the worst displays of reading comprehension that I've seen in a while, subby.  Yikes.  Don't sign any legal documents for a while, ok?

/But it said I DIDN'T want to give you a testicle!  I read it!
 
2014-02-20 10:27:47 AM  

Rincewind53: Actually,subby, you got itexactly backwards, which is why it's so scary.


Reading for comprehension instead of validation of preconceived notions?  BAH.  HUMBUG!
 
2014-02-20 10:46:03 AM  
B-but, OBAMA DEATH PANELS!

/Benghazi
 
2014-02-20 10:47:19 AM  

Rincewind53: Actually,subby, you got itexactly backwards, which is why it's so scary.


img.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-20 10:47:20 AM  
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2014-02-20 10:47:41 AM  
lounge.obviousmag.org
 
2014-02-20 10:47:53 AM  
I'm starting to agree with a lot of the reasoning behind a fully nationalized health care system. Effective health care and a profit motive simply do not mix.
 
2014-02-20 10:48:20 AM  

Rincewind53: Diogenes: Thanks, Obama.

Yeah, what an A-hole.


I sure the hell ain't voting for THAT man again!
 
2014-02-20 10:49:36 AM  
In other new, how many of you know that municipal ambulances now charge for ride to a hospital or any aid rendered?  Municipal fire departments are doing the same thing.   This country has become a freak show.
 
2014-02-20 10:52:36 AM  

qorkfiend: I'm starting to agree with a lot of the reasoning behind a fully nationalized health care system. Effective health care and a profit motive simply do not mix.


What did you support before?
 
2014-02-20 10:52:46 AM  
That was too complicated.  Can someone just tell me why Obama is bad?
 
2014-02-20 10:53:18 AM  
I just came by to pile on subby.
 
2014-02-20 10:54:31 AM  
I thought the ACA was supposed to solve this.
 
2014-02-20 10:55:21 AM  

ikanreed: qorkfiend: I'm starting to agree with a lot of the reasoning behind a fully nationalized health care system. Effective health care and a profit motive simply do not mix.

What did you support before?


A Germany or Canada-style hybrid (public option with private care providers), but still falling short of whole hog nationalization like the NHS.
 
2014-02-20 10:56:37 AM  
How's that non-socialism health care system working out for you/me? Not well it seems.
 
2014-02-20 10:56:44 AM  

Rincewind53: Actually,subby, you got itexactly backwards, which is why it's so scary. Private hospitalswithout trauma centers are keeping critically ill patients  with insurance in their hospitals for longer time before transferring them to a trauma center to get the right kind of treatment. That means that if you have insurance, you're actually going to do  worse, because the admitting hospital you get taken to might want to keep you there for a little while so they can bill you. On the other hand, if you  don't have insurance you're not worth anything to them so they transfer you up the chain to the trauma center much more quickly, rather than eat costs from treating an uninsured person. And studies have shown that failure to be transported to a trauma center puts you at a greater risk.

In other words,  having insurance is a bad thing in this circumstance, because of hospital greediness.


Subby is a horrible reader, public hospitals have the best trauma centers since that's where the worst cases are always brought. Its also irrelevant since most doctors will be at either hospital.
 
2014-02-20 10:56:49 AM  

LineNoise: I thought the ACA was supposed to solve this.


The ACA outlawed private hospitals? How about that.
 
2014-02-20 10:57:59 AM  

qorkfiend: I'm starting to agree with a lot of the reasoning behind a fully nationalized health care system. Effective health care and a profit motive simply do not mix.



Kind of like pig and elephant DNA.
 
2014-02-20 10:58:21 AM  

Rapmaster2000: That was too complicated.  Can someone just tell me why Obama is bad?


I'm pretty sure, "He's a non-white Muslim socialist who wasn't born in 'Merica," is still the leading reason.
 
2014-02-20 10:58:49 AM  

qorkfiend: I'm starting to agree with a lot of the reasoning behind a fully nationalized health care system. Effective health care and a profit motive simply do not mix.


Just how would single payer prevent this?
 
2014-02-20 11:00:37 AM  

LineNoise: I thought the ACA was supposed to solve this.


Bad submissions?  Let's not oversell it.
 
2014-02-20 11:00:44 AM  

Fissile: In other new, how many of you know that municipal ambulances now charge for ride to a hospital or any aid rendered?  Municipal fire departments are doing the same thing.   This country has become a freak show.



Hasn't that always been the case?  I remember a co-worker 10 years ago telling me she got charged 300 bucks for an ambulance ride to the hospital.

Bottom line, if your life isn't in immediate danger don't take an ambulance.  Renting a limo to take you to the hospital would probably be cheaper.
 
2014-02-20 11:01:48 AM  

qorkfiend: ikanreed: qorkfiend: I'm starting to agree with a lot of the reasoning behind a fully nationalized health care system. Effective health care and a profit motive simply do not mix.

What did you support before?

A Germany or Canada-style hybrid (public option with private care providers), but still falling short of whole hog nationalization like the NHS.


The problem is any health care plan is doomed to fail without proper cost controls, otherwise you still have big pharma buying up little companies patents then jacking the price up 4000%.

It wasn't done last time because they give to both sides to make sure they get favorable treatment to keep their profits sky high. People don't go bankrupt from doctors bills, they go bankrupt from the high cost associated with treatment.

Fix the US patent system and most of this bullshiat is taken care of, until then we will be subsidizing research for the rest of the world.
 
2014-02-20 11:02:06 AM  

DrPainMD: qorkfiend: I'm starting to agree with a lot of the reasoning behind a fully nationalized health care system. Effective health care and a profit motive simply do not mix.

Just how would single payer prevent this?



What would be the motive of the hospital for not transfering a patient to a trauma center?
 
2014-02-20 11:03:35 AM  

qorkfiend: I'm starting to agree with a lot of the reasoning behind a fully nationalized health care system. Effective health care and a profit motive simply do not mix.


Too late to hate freedom.
 
2014-02-20 11:03:45 AM  

steamingpile: Rincewind53: Actually,subby, you got itexactly backwards, which is why it's so scary. Private hospitalswithout trauma centers are keeping critically ill patients  with insurance in their hospitals for longer time before transferring them to a trauma center to get the right kind of treatment. That means that if you have insurance, you're actually going to do  worse, because the admitting hospital you get taken to might want to keep you there for a little while so they can bill you. On the other hand, if you  don't have insurance you're not worth anything to them so they transfer you up the chain to the trauma center much more quickly, rather than eat costs from treating an uninsured person. And studies have shown that failure to be transported to a trauma center puts you at a greater risk.

In other words,  having insurance is a bad thing in this circumstance, because of hospital greediness.

Subby is a horrible reader, public hospitals have the best trauma centers since that's where the worst cases are always brought. Its also irrelevant since most doctors will be at either hospital.


Trauma centers have the best patient care for trauma cases because they're set up to be - equipment, training, and experience vary from hospital to hospital (even those in the same "system" or "network"), and trauma centers, as noted in TFA, have 25% lower mortality rate than public hospitals. And the worst cases AREN'T always brought to trauma centers, which is the point of TFA.

If all things were equal, as you claim, that 25% difference would be due to chance, making the practice of medicine largely a crapshoot no matter where you go.
 
2014-02-20 11:04:04 AM  

Rapmaster2000: That was too complicated.  Can someone just tell me why Obama is bad?


He's bad the same way any other democrat or republican is bad, they are part of the system and are doing nothing to correct it. They have no reason to since they get money coming and going.

I fully believe it will keep going until a complete breakdown happens then maybe it will change and we can get more than two parties that pretend like they are fighting for the people.
 
2014-02-20 11:05:23 AM  

DrPainMD: qorkfiend: I'm starting to agree with a lot of the reasoning behind a fully nationalized health care system. Effective health care and a profit motive simply do not mix.

Just how would single payer prevent this?


I said "fully nationalized health care system", not "single payer". Are you subby? You both seem to be singularly lacking in reading comprehension.
 
2014-02-20 11:06:10 AM  

Neondistraction: Fissile: In other new, how many of you know that municipal ambulances now charge for ride to a hospital or any aid rendered?  Municipal fire departments are doing the same thing.   This country has become a freak show.


Hasn't that always been the case?  I remember a co-worker 10 years ago telling me she got charged 300 bucks for an ambulance ride to the hospital.

Bottom line, if your life isn't in immediate danger don't take an ambulance.  Renting a limo to take you to the hospital would probably be cheaper.


When I was in college, over 20 years ago, I got into a car accident and was transported to the hospital by municipal ambulance.....no charge for the ambulance ride.   My car insurance paid the ENTIRE 3 day hospital stay and doctor bill.  I paid about $10 for phone and TV service.  Car insurance also paid ALL of my follow up visits.
 
2014-02-20 11:06:15 AM  

Dr Dreidel: steamingpile: Rincewind53: Actually,subby, you got itexactly backwards, which is why it's so scary. Private hospitalswithout trauma centers are keeping critically ill patients  with insurance in their hospitals for longer time before transferring them to a trauma center to get the right kind of treatment. That means that if you have insurance, you're actually going to do  worse, because the admitting hospital you get taken to might want to keep you there for a little while so they can bill you. On the other hand, if you  don't have insurance you're not worth anything to them so they transfer you up the chain to the trauma center much more quickly, rather than eat costs from treating an uninsured person. And studies have shown that failure to be transported to a trauma center puts you at a greater risk.

In other words,  having insurance is a bad thing in this circumstance, because of hospital greediness.

Subby is a horrible reader, public hospitals have the best trauma centers since that's where the worst cases are always brought. Its also irrelevant since most doctors will be at either hospital.

Trauma centers have the best patient care for trauma cases because they're set up to be - equipment, training, and experience vary from hospital to hospital (even those in the same "system" or "network"), and trauma centers, as noted in TFA, have 25% lower mortality rate than public hospitals. And the worst cases AREN'T always brought to trauma centers, which is the point of TFA.

If all things were equal, as you claim, that 25% difference would be due to chance, making the practice of medicine largely a crapshoot no matter where you go.


No its due to mostly gunshot victims and the like being brought there, most private hospitals are in a part of town where that doesn't happen nearly as much.

Its simply a realty location nothing more but the article is trying to provoke outrage about nothing.
 
2014-02-20 11:06:21 AM  

LineNoise: I thought the ACA was supposed to solve this.


Solve what? Subster's lack of reading comprehension and/or your ability to RTFA?
 
2014-02-20 11:06:23 AM  

steamingpile: Rapmaster2000: That was too complicated.  Can someone just tell me why Obama is bad?

He's bad the same way any other democrat or republican is bad, they are part of the system and are doing nothing to correct it. They have no reason to since they get money coming and going.

I fully believe it will keep going until a complete breakdown happens then maybe it will change and we can get more than two parties that pretend like they are fighting for the people.


Yeah, Obama and the Democrats certainly didn't try to overhaul of the health care system as soon as they had the chance.
 
2014-02-20 11:08:39 AM  
They'll keep the ones with money, even if they shouldn't.  Because healthcare is a business, and thus it puts money first.

They'll dump the ones without money, even if they shouldn't.  Because healthcare is a business,  and thus it puts money first.

Either way, in America, we love our profit motive, hate the results.

/subby was half right.
 
2014-02-20 11:08:46 AM  
Regardless of how accurate subby's headline is, this is still a
static.guim.co.uk
 
2014-02-20 11:09:17 AM  
A great society, indeed.
 
2014-02-20 11:09:32 AM  

T-Servo

B-but, OBAMA DEATH PANELS!
As fark-tards continue to deny the patients being hassled and denied treatment under zero-care.


When you can't win the debate on the facts, silence the opposition (delete posts) or just ad hominem. It's been the socialist tool since... forever.
 
2014-02-20 11:10:05 AM  

qorkfiend: I'm starting to agree with a lot of the reasoning behind a fully nationalized health care system. Effective health care and a profit motive simply do not mix.


This. Single. Payer. Now. Anything else is just foolishness. Healthcare is a human right and shouldn't be determined by your financial status.
 
2014-02-20 11:10:41 AM  

DrPainMD: qorkfiend: I'm starting to agree with a lot of the reasoning behind a fully nationalized health care system. Effective health care and a profit motive simply do not mix.

Just how would single payer prevent this?


Frankly, I don't understand the complexities surrounding your medical system.  It's ridiculous in the extreme.

In Canada, if you are in a bad accident, you are immediately taken directly to the nearest trauma centre (unless you were taken to the nearest hospital and they found out your injuries require special care, then you're transferred...to the nearest or most qualified).  Our health care system does not dictate where you go for medical care, your condition does.
 
2014-02-20 11:11:52 AM  
Somebody should just fix the guy out of the goodness of their hearts and not charge him. Thats what they would do in Happy Rainbow Funland
 
2014-02-20 11:13:25 AM  

Literally Addicted: DrPainMD: qorkfiend: I'm starting to agree with a lot of the reasoning behind a fully nationalized health care system. Effective health care and a profit motive simply do not mix.

Just how would single payer prevent this?

Frankly, I don't understand the complexities surrounding your medical system.  It's ridiculous in the extreme.

In Canada, if you are in a bad accident, you are immediately taken directly to the nearest trauma centre (unless you were taken to the nearest hospital and they found out your injuries require special care, then you're transferred...to the nearest or most qualified).  Our health care system does not dictate where you go for medical care, your condition does.


Well, sure, that's great.

But the downside is that you have to live in Canada.
 
2014-02-20 11:14:26 AM  

Fissile: In other new, how many of you know that municipal ambulances now charge for ride to a hospital or any aid rendered?  Municipal fire departments are doing the same thing.   This country has become a freak show.


has become?
LOL
HAS been a freak show for a damn long time
 
2014-02-20 11:15:03 AM  

OnlyM3: As fark-tards continue to deny the patients being hassled and denied treatment under zero-care.


Damn right.  That never happened befo...oh, wait.

Jesus, your style hasn't changed in years.  One-line derpfests, easily rebutted, not original, not funny, completely boring.  You are exactly as sad and pathetic as I've always thought you to be.  At least you manage people's expectations well!
 
2014-02-20 11:15:09 AM  

LineNoise: I thought the ACA was supposed to solve this.


Don't lie, you didn't think.
 
2014-02-20 11:17:45 AM  

OnlyM3: T-Servo

B-but, OBAMA DEATH PANELS!
As fark-tards continue to deny the patients being hassled and denied treatment under zero-care.


When you can't win the debate on the facts, silence the opposition (delete posts) or just ad hominem. It's been the socialist tool since... forever.


Answer for your stupid climate change website, liar.
 
2014-02-20 11:17:50 AM  

Neondistraction: Fissile: In other new, how many of you know that municipal ambulances now charge for ride to a hospital or any aid rendered?  Municipal fire departments are doing the same thing.   This country has become a freak show.


Hasn't that always been the case?  I remember a co-worker 10 years ago telling me she got charged 300 bucks for an ambulance ride to the hospital.

Bottom line, if your life isn't in immediate danger don't take an ambulance.  Renting a limo to take you to the hospital would probably be cheaper.


We get those bills, but they're dismissed if the ambulance ride was necessary.  ie: broke your arm at home where someone could have driven you, it'll be a $75 bill for the ambulance, but get into a car accident and the police call the ambulance to take you to the hospital, it gets waived.  It's kind of subjective, but if you can justify the ambulance ride, it gets covered under the health care system.
 
Displayed 50 of 111 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report