Obama ran on hate the rich, hate Bush. I disagree!


Hmmmm......

http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...=&aqi=&start=0

U. of C. shunning poor patients?

Sen. Barack Obama's wife and three close advisers have been involved with a program at the University of Chicago Medical Center that steers patients who don't have private insurance -- primarily poor, black people -- to other health care facilities.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politic...hosp23.article

Another old story how the Obamas play

Within any group, bad and good people. The over all theme of Obama's campaign was clearly based on a positive foundation, one "hope and change". That "other party" needs to sharpen their message, offer specific ideas, not just ugly rhetoric and trashy posters. Or, they will flame out or be absorbed.

Offering specific ideas, along with hope, is also a problem for the Repub's. They have been negative for so long, on the defense for so long, if they can't turn that around they will remain out of power. Doesn't matter HOW they got there, they are there now!

Take their latest shenanigans for instance, blocking several of Obama's appointee's for office. Why? No specific logical reason, just being azz's, just thumbing their nose at the administration. The American people are not blind to this, it does nothing to promote a perception of fair play, reaching across the aisle, trying to find some common ground. It just makes them look silly.

Again, I don't say this because I'm right, left or center, it's just an observation.

55 to 41 against. Rasmussen has one of the best records in polling.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...th_care_reform


Polls suggest healthcare debate a boon to GOP candidates running for Senate

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign...ate-candidates

U of Chicago:
The "Urban Health Initiative", it looks like a good well thought out plan. Should work well at other hospitals around the country. It helps lower the long lines at emergency care, provides other facilities with additional income and free's up the major facilities to do more advanced procedures. I like it.

Presumably, he would be similarly dismissive of Angela Adams, who brought her son to the medical center's ER after his lip had been partially torn off by a pit bull. As the Tribune puts it, "Instead of rushing Dontae into surgery ... the hospital's staff began pressing her about insurance." Unfortunately for Dontae, he was covered by Medicaid. So, all he got from the UCMC emergency department was a shot, some antibiotics, and instructions to "follow up with Cook County." Angela had to take her son across town to John Stroger Hospital, where he was immediately admitted for reconstructive surgery. Like doctors Jouriles and Weiss, Angela is having trouble seeing the community benefit of the Urban Health Initiative.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...dumping_1.html

Many patients suffered needlessly, and more than a few actually died, as the result of this practice. So, in 1986, President Reagan signed the Emergency Medical Labor and Treatment Act (EMTALA) into law. EMTALA made such "redirection" illegal, but many high profile hospitals still chafed at being forced to treat poor patients. Enter Michelle Obama, UCMC's "Vice President for Community and External Affairs."


Mrs, Obama first hatched the UCMC program as the "South Side Health Collaborative," which featured a gang of "counselors" whose job it was to "advise" low-income patients that they would be better off at other hospitals and clinics. The program was so successful in getting rid of unwanted patients that she expanded it, gave it a new name, and hired none other than David Axelrod to sell the program to the public. According to the Sun-Times, "Obama's wife and Valerie Jarrett, an Obama friend and adviser who chairs the medical center's board, backed the Axelrod firm's hiring." Axelrod helped the future First Lady formulate a public relations campaign in which the "Urban Health Initiative" was represented as a boon to the community actuated by the purest of altruistic motives.

Republican report:
"It's a patient dumping scheme."
I suspect the real problem here is "fear", some people are just afraid of change.

Democrat report:
"An innovative program to steer patients to existing neighborhood clinics."

My turn:
This program had the unforseen impact of increasing income at smaller clinics on the verge of going broke. Poor little Johnny had to drive all the way across town to get his FREE SURGERY following his care at U.C. I'm just appalled he wasn't immediately air lifted to St. Judes Childrens Hospital.

Weeeelllllll, did the libs get their Christmas Eve gift?

(you know, free everything)

Mike

No, the real problem is providing medical services and not getting paid for them.

Who's not getting paid?

Like maybe the HOSPITALS and DOCTORS ?

In the example cited in this thread of the young man injured by a pitt bull: he received emergency room care at U.C. and follow up care at another hospital. All of it covered by his insurance plan. All the hospitals and doctors were paid.

The emergency room wait at U.C. can take up to 24 hours, by the way. Many, to many, use it for primary care (sore throat, runny nose). There are other clinics and services available that are CLOSER to where many of these folks live, but they never knew about them. Now, more of them do. I think this program would be a welcome relief to any number of large city hospitals. Educate the people about existing clinics and health options available near them, reduce the load and the waiting time at the larger hospitals.

Look, here we are talking about Health Care Reform. This is one idea that has proven it's worth and yet all it get's from the right side of the aisle is "patient dumping".

I have yet to see a reasonable, workable plan offered by the Republicans. 90% of what they "offer" is "it aint gonna work, let's slow down". That isn't a plan, it's foot dragging and fear of change.

The last big change in Health Care the Republicans offered was to substantially increase the drug plan for Medicare. That plan did not have any kind of tax or cost cutting or saving's associated with it. It ALL went straight to the deficit, 100%. At least Obama HAS a plan to cover the cost, that alone put's him ahead of the Repubs!

You really need to put the Unicorn away! You totally mis-construed the articles point. It never stated if the boy had insurance. But following the direction of the writer he had no insurance. JUST WOW! Time for meds she shouted to the patience.

Let's review the facts before we serve dinner, which tonight is an excellent blend of "crow" with a fine "whine". Bon appetit Ralphy. :)

Angela Adam's, her son's name was Dante. He received emergency care at the University of Chicago Medical Center. He received additional followup care at John Stroger Hospital, a "for profit" facility. UCMC is a teaching hospital, a "not for profit" facility, with higher operating costs than a regular hospital because of the instruction and training it provides.

Another notable Hosptial in Chicago is "Mercy Hospital". In particular Mercy has benefitted from UCMC's program because it now sees a larger number of patients. Patients who used to routinely show up at UCMC's emergency room.

Patient dumping is illegal, period. It is estimated that FORTY PERCENT of the patients in emergency rooms do not need to be there. UCMC specializes in organ transplants, the ER spends a great deal of time and money on cuts, bruises and other less critical conditions that are easily treated by community hospitals or health centers. OFTEN closer to the home of the person needing care than UCMC is! No one is turned away. Patients are counseled and educated as to their options.

Whats that you say? I haven't answered the burning question? Did Dante have insurance or not? Oh yes, he did, and I can prove it! Would you like some more whine with your crow Monsur? Or, would you rather skip dinner tonight in a vain attempt to prove that poor little Dante did not have insurance?

Interesting follow up question's:
What IF Dante did not have insurance? How would John Stoger Hospital get paid for the surgery they performed? Or, would they have been forced to "dump" little Dante? Perhaps their "surgery" would be limited to a "few staples" to close the wound, leaving Dante scared for the rest of his life? All ready poor and now with a serious facial scar how would that impact his ability to find work in the coming years?

I just can't understand what is going through your brain.

It was Regan that sign into law to ELIMINATE PATIENT DUMPING.

It was Michelle Obama ( A LAWYER) , while working for UC hospital that implemented a protocol to divert patients from the UC ER room to other local hospitals, POSSIBLY with the INTENTION OF DIVERTING UN-INSURED PATIENTS TO OTHER HOSPITALS DESPITE THE ANTI-DUMPING LAW ALREADY IN EFFECT. LAWYERS ARE GOOD AT MANIPULATING THE LAW, TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A LOOPHOLE, TO THEIR ADVANTAGE, TO CIRCUMVENT A LAW THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN TO PREVENT WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. IN MY ENTIRE CAREER, I HAVE NEVER COME ACROSS A SINGLE CASE / PATIENT WHERE I THOUGHT THERE WAS ANY PATIENT DUMPING ISSUES. HOWEVER, I NEVER WORKED IN THE U.C. HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.

Does this make any sense to you?

Do you believe the earth is flat or round ?

The question Anthony, and others are asking, is this.

IS UCMC dumping patients? Of course that is illegal. AND there are calls for a Congressional investigation of these accusations (by Republicans without a doubt)! I say "Bring it on." Let's get it out in the light and address these serious accusations. When the smoke has cleared and UCMC is found not guilty, let's take the NEXT STEP. Institute this kind of program across the country and specifically deal with the ER issues that are so expensive to health care in general.

But wait, Dante DID have insurance. So, whats really going on here?

By the way, I offer this:
But of course, we know Dante WAS TREATED ANYWAY by UCMC before being transferred!

Anthony, would you like to join us for dinner? :)

And the answer is something like this, from the little I have read. What U.C. has implemented is I think technically legal, to ADVISE patients of closer options for medical care, and not directly send them to other imstitutions. After being informed of the other optional facilities, U.C. possibly hopes the patients will then follow-up with care at these other institutions instead of back at U.C. I do not know of any other institution that makes an effort to EDUCATE patients about other institutions.

Is this patient dumping?

Do you think the lawyers, I mean the government, will think it is patient dumping?

No, I don't think the Government will see it as patient dumping. Quite the opposite, the UCMC program has been showing excellent results, while REMAINING controversial. Perhaps it is not a perfect program? What can we do to formulate more specific guidelines that could achieve similiar productive results in other area's? I think the issue deserves a close look. I REMAIN concerned that especially at "for profit" hospitals and clinics this program could easily be abused and come even closer, or cross the line, into real patient dumping. I acknowledge the risk.

I think in the case of UCMC "educate" is a good word choice. They are, after all, a teaching hospital, if not them, who? If not now, when?