[Info-vax] Just how much is 30, 000 pounds in US dollars? Basic programmers

[George Cook]

In article <d79f13dd-e6dc-4784-bd79-99820f464ccd at q2g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Doug Phillips <dphill46 at netscape.net> writes:
> Since it seems my post and Phillip's reply was what started this
> disagreement, I feel compelled to respond:

I believe we are in complete agreement as far as what doctors are
required and are not required to do.  Yes, the thread got off track,
but I disagree that I misunderstood what seasoned_geek was saying.
My response was based entirely on his statements that a doctor must
treat anyone who presents themselves in front of him.  I suppose
if he means "treat" = "assess if it is an emergency", then we simply
will have to agree to disagree about the meaning of the word "treat".    
As to his point about nurses and admins, it doesn't matter how many
nurses and admins are in the way; a doctor is still required to
provide treatment to someone who runs into their office with blood
gushing out of a serious neck wound.  Any nurse who tried to prevent
treatment would be in serious violation of their ethical code,
whereas an admin would probably be quilty of a civil, if not an
actual criminal, offense.  Of course everthing changes if the
doctor is already treating a previous person who ran into their
office with a gushing neck wound.

If seasoned_geek would clarify his statements, instead of just
repeating the same blanket statements and quoting from fictional
TV shows, then I'd be willing to have a rational discussion.
However, this is all way off topic for this group, so I think
I'm going to try to not add any more off topic noise. 
  

George Cook

> On Feb 10, 9:32 pm, c... at wvnvms.wvnet.edu (George Cook) wrote:
>> In article <e1e00b54-1e9b-4224-8d2f-1fb1cc9a9... at o10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, seasoned_geek <rol... at logikalsolutions.com> writes:
>> > On Feb 6, 7:51=A0pm, c... at wvnvms.wvnet.edu (George Cook) wrote:
>> >> In article <3f270075-45cc-4f2d-9e38-a77f1e8ac... at z20g2000yqe.googlegroups=
>> > .com>, seasoned_geek <rol... at logikalsolutions.com> writes:
>>
> 
> My original statement, the one that seems to have started this, was
> omitted from the last few quotes:
> 
> I said:
>     Of course, with the government's current financial problems
> causing
>     slow payment to providers, fewer and fewer doctors are accepting
>     Medicare/Medicaid patients.
> 
> After that, the discussion went to hell:
> 
>> >> > On Feb 1, 4:02=3DA0pm, hel... at astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig undress to reply) wrote:
>> >> >> Any country where a physician can refuse to accept a patient is not
>> >> >> civilised. =3DA0
>>
>> >> > A physician is not allowed. =A0They are required to treat the patient i=
>> > n
>> >> > front of them or lose their license. =A0This is why there is such a min=
>> > e
>> >> > field of administrators and LPNs between the patient and the
>> >> > physician, re-directing them to county.
>>
>> >> What country are you referring to? =A0In general, in the US,
>> >> hospitals and individual docters can turn away anyone unless
>> >> it is an emergency, although public hospitals usually treat
>> >> anyone regardless of ability to pay. =A0The main reason why some
>> >> emergency rooms are so crowded is that people who can only afford
>> >> "free" care go there. =A0In general, emergency departments (at
>> >> least non-private ones) treat anyone seeking care whether or not
>> >> it is an emergency, however, even public Level 1 trauma centers
>> >> (due to being over capacity) sometime turn away ambulances unless
>> >> it is a true Level 1 emergency (i.e., the patient will most likely
>> >> die before reaching the next available ER).
>>
>> >> George Cook
>>
> 
> All true, but nothing to do with a doctor accepting a new patient, or
> the Medicare/Medicaid situation, but you have highlighted a few
> problems in our current health care system.
> 
> Doctors are required to *treat* a person in immediate need. They are
> not required to *accept* that person as a patient.
> 
> It looks like there is a misunderstanding between treating a patient
> and accepting a patient. Treatment implies an immediate action.
> Acceptance implies an on-going relationship.
> 
> When a person seeking medical aid is, as seasoned_geek said, "in front
> of" a doctor, the doctor is obligated to assess whether or not the
> person is in danger of dying if immediate treatment is not given, and
> to at least stabilize the person if possible. What happens after that
> depends on a large number of variables.
> 
> If you walk into a doctors office complaining of a sore arm, and you
> are not already that doctor's patient, many things could happen.
> Whether or not you are a Medicare/Medicaid patient might be one of the
> determining factors.
> 
> If you walk in with blood gushing from your arm, you must be treated.
> The doctor, while compelled to provide treatment, is not compelled to
> accept you as a patient.
> 
>> > In the U.S., a DOCTOR is not allowed to refuse treatment and maintain
>> > their license.  The nurse and admin people in the doctor's office are
>> > the ones turning patients away.  Again, at a Level 1 trauma center,
>> > the admin staff are the ones turning patients away, not a DOCTOR.
>> > It's part of the licensing and part of the modern hippocratic oath
>>
>> I'm sorry, but you are wrong.  The North won the war and ended
>> slavery.
> 
> There is a difference between slavery and being licensed to practice
> medicine. Many things that a person wants to do require a license, and
> failure to comply with its terms can cause it to be revoked.
> 
>> Unless it is an emergency, a doctor doesn't have to do
>> anything.
> 
> No one said otherwise. You are confusing the terms "provide treatment"
> and "accepting a patient."
> 
> 
>>  It is the head of the ER (a doctor) who declares closure
>> to new patients.  In triage situations, doctors (in person) often
>> refuse to treat patients who are less likely to survive even if
>> there is a chance they might survive.  Ethical (as opposed to
>> ones who will do anything for the right price) cosmetic surgeons
>> regularly turn patients away if they believe the patients want it
>> for the wrong reasons or that they have unreasonable expectations.
>> IMO, the surgeon who did Joan Rivers should lose his license for
>> malpractice; just because someone wants to become hideously
>> disfigured doesn't mean a doctor is required to do it.  The
>> unethical fertility doctor who treated the Octomom should have
>> lost his license (a prison sentence would not have been too
>> harsh IMO).
>>
> 
> Your points are valid, but have nothing to do with a physician
> accepting or not accepting medicare/medicaid recipients as new
> patients.
> 
>> You seem to think that by simply walking up to the first doctor
>> you meet on the street, that he is required to treat whatever
>> ills you (e.g. bad cold, ingrown toenail, cataracts, hangover,
>> baldness, hay fever, high blood presssure, ...).  I suppose you
>> think if you ambush a doctor as he is entering/leaving his office
>> (thereby getting the nurses and admins out of the way), that he
>> is therefore forced to accept you as a patient?  You couldn't
>> be more wrong.
>>
> 
> I didn't read anyone in this thread claiming any of those things.
> 
>> A personal example:  if I had asked the doctor who was giving me
>> a second opinion on my back to take over my care, he would have
>> had every right to tell me he was not accepting new patients.
>> You actually think otherwise?
>>
> 
> Who has said they think otherwise? S_g was stating a licensed doctor's
> obligation to *treat* a person *in front of him* who presents
> immediate need. No one has said that a doctor must accept anyone who
> comes to him as a patient. You have read more into what has been
> written than what was there.
> 
>> Please don't tell me you believe anything shown on fictional TV
>> dramas?  Unless you have something intelligent to say, this will
>> be my last reply.  I apologize to the group if I have fallen
>> victim to a troll.
>>
>> George Cook
> 
> I see no trolling here. No disrespect intended.