Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (543608)	10/19/2013 1:50:56 AM
From: Copeland	Respond to of 793639

What I was suggesting was an implementation of a co-pay to dissuade people from using the Emergency Room for non-emergent issues. Unfortunately, for every potential heart attack patient, there are several more individuals in the ER being treated for issues that can wait until they can be seen by their primary care physicians or by an urgent care. For those with insurance, such a co-pay system exists -- for example, I have to pay a $150 co-pay to get ER care under my plan, but only $50 should I go to an urgent care. That co-pay won't stop me from coming in to be worked up if I had chest pains or broke a bone, but it would cause me to hesitate if I had some mild rash for the last few days or slight ringing in my ears. However, for those on Medicaid in certain states or without insurance altogether, such co-pays do not exist. The poor are more likely to utilize the ER for their primary care needs, part of that is likely due to limited access to physician practices because they don't have insurance; part of that may be due to other factors. Either way, should we transition to a single payer system in the future, a co-pay system is necessary or the ER system will likely be overloaded with non-ER complaints, which will take away resources from the true emergencies.