It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
# Access to Emergency Services. Patients have the right to access emergency health services when and where the need arises. Health plans should provide payment when a patient presents himself/herself to any emergency department with acute symptoms of sufficient severity "including severe pain" that a "prudent layperson" could reasonably expect the absence of medical attention to result in placing that consumer's health in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part.
...
# Care Without Discrimination. Patients have the right to considerate, respectful care from all members of the health care industry at all times and under all circumstances. Patients must not be discriminated against in the marketing or enrollment or in the provision of health care services, consistent with the benefits covered in their policy and/or as required by law, based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, age, current or anticipated mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, or source of payment.
Any patient who "comes to the emergency department" requesting "examination or treatment for a medical condition" must be provided with "an appropriate medical screening examination" to determine if he is suffering from an "emergency medical condition". If he is, then the hospital is obligated to either provide him with treatment until he is stable or to transfer him to another hospital in conformance with the statute's directives.
Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by jfj123
It does appear that they must be examined but i don't see where they must be treated.
Any patient who "comes to the emergency department" requesting "examination or treatment for a medical condition" must be provided with "an appropriate medical screening examination" to determine if he is suffering from an "emergency medical condition". If he is, then the hospital is obligated to either provide him with treatment until he is stable or to transfer him to another hospital in conformance with the statute's directives.
Originally posted by Aliensurge
Oh and more thing. It seems me that the federal government loves illegals. So many illegals are in the armed forces.
Stabilizing a patient is treating a patient. Also check a few posts back as another poster quoted additional info regarding patient rights.
Your right stabilizing a patient is a form of treatment
So if all are stabilized, all are treated
Originally posted by harvib
But it is incorrect to say that all are given treatment even if all our given stabalazation when required.
Originally posted by Jenna
Originally posted by Aliensurge
Oh and more thing. It seems me that the federal government loves illegals. So many illegals are in the armed forces.
The only way an immigrant can be in the US military today is by being a legal permanent resident. This status does not include temporary work or student visas. Up until roughly two years ago, those who were permanent resident aliens could only serve up to eight years, at which point they would be discharged for failure to obtain citizenship. They also could not hold security clearances, nor could they be officers in any branch of the military. Today they still cannot hold security clearances or be officers, but the legal residents can serve as long as they like. Key word there is legal. You cannot in any way shape or form join the US military if you are an illegal alien or hold a temporary visa. Please get your facts straight before posting misinformation about the military.
*edit to fix run on sentence that made no sense.*
[edit on 10-8-2008 by Jenna]
Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by ADisbeliever
Well it's very hypocritical at the least. The entire world whines when America meddles with the affairs of the world, but you think it's alright for them to tell Americans how our country should be?
Um. I think the "whining" you are reffering to is in regards to armed invasions and occupations. I don't think the posters on this forum have taken this debate to that level.
Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by jfj123
The minor price differences in goods isn't worth the loss of American jobs, higher health care premiums and higher taxes we pay to make up for them. They're not scapegoats, they're criminals. You seem to be missing the part that they have committed a crime.
I don't know if the price differences are minor. Also if this is such a problem why is the only campaign a verbal one. In other words why not even an attempt to close our borders? Why are we constantly focused on the effects and never the casue. Seems like an easy enough problem to solve, no?
Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by jfj123
Stabilizing a patient is treating a patient. Also check a few posts back as another poster quoted additional info regarding patient rights.
Your right stabilizing a patient is a form of treatment. But it is incorrect to say that all are given treatment even if all our given stabalazation when required.
Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by ohioriver
Fair enough. But why since the media has begun to demonize this issue are we now so concerned. Illegal immigration has been an issue since early in our Countries history. The Irish, the Chinese, the Italians, the Japanese, Vietnamese, etc, etc, etc. Always with the same issues you have listed. But now everyone acts like it is a new issue. Why?
Also you will have to forgive my ignorance. What is with this ms13? This is another piece of rhetoric that has been popping up lately. I don't watch much T.V. or follow the main stream media.