Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by shiroiushi 634 days ago
>In all cases treatment is required by law, regardless of payment.

No, it's not. This is a myth. The only thing that's required is to stabilize the patient. If you need surgery to repair your shattered leg bone so you don't get an infection and need an amputation, you're not going to get that surgery without payment. But once you get a bad infection and need the leg amputated so you don't die, they'll do that for free.

2 comments

I'm not sure where this is happening, and I'm not saying you're wrong, but where I live, doctors are paid salary and they care for patients, so from my perspective what you're referring to sounds like a myth. My friends, who are doctors, operate all the time on people who have no identification and they do their absolute best. And there is no monetary incentive to do otherwise and they would quit and find a different hospital if there were. Anecdotal? Maybe. I'm open to hear from a doctor that says otherwise.

As best I can tell, the medical community and education system would reject a doctor in the US from licensure for any other attitude towards health care.

Doctors have absolutely nothing to do with who gets care and who doesn't: that's controlled by hospital administration and other hospital staff. The doctors are just employees. When was the last time you saw a doctor in the ER reception room talking to new arrivals and deciding if they need to see a doctor or not?
I'd love to go to a hospital where the administration determines if my health condition is emergency or not. That's a cash in hand settlement case.
Please show me a hospital where actual doctors are manning the ER intake desks and triaging patients instead of actually working with patients in exam rooms.
I didn't say that. But at the very least a nurse or PA will take your vitals while you wait for the doctor. And the doctor will determine when you are low risk enough to be discharged. They aren't taking your vitals in the lobby anywhere I've seen, unless that's where you collapse.
The whole conversation here is about Americans not getting life-saving healthcare, and you haven't refuted my claim. If you need chemotherapy for cancer, for instance, you're not going to get that in an ER. If you need bone reconstruction, you're not going to get that in an ER either. These are things that are done by appointment after consultation with specialists. They're not immediate life-threatening emergencies (you're not going to die in an hour without chemo), so the hospital has no responsibility to provide these treatments to you without regard for payment. Their only obligation is to stabilize you so you can see a specialist later.
Just wanted to post back to share that I researched such incidences and except for a few cases where the hospital was sued and lost and doctors fired, I didn't find any examples of this as an accepted or legally viable practice. If you have some examples to share, I'll be interested.