Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Aren't hospitals in the US required to provide emergency care to everyone in need of it?

Edit: never mind, after opening the article I got that it was health care in general. My too quick reading of the quote made me think it was just related to emergency care at first.

Also I thought there were several loop holes around "Provide emergency care".

[sluissa]

There are loopholes, but the key word there is critical care. If you come in with a life threatening injury or illness, they have to stabilize you. That does mean they can send you home with a problem that is not immediately life threatening that may likely become so soon.

As for

I'm fairly certain there's lots of precedent for this happening, which is exactly why the law Trump reversed was put in place.

I'm going to immediately put on my skeptical glasses for that simply based on who is writing that and who organized the surveys involved. They obviously have a large monetary stake in making things seem as bad as they can.

[Neonivek]

There are loopholes, but the key word there is critical care. If you come in with a life threatening injury or illness, they have to stabilize you. That does mean they can send you home with a problem that is not immediately life threatening that may likely become so soon.

Also I think there are two other loop holes. One is they can send you to a different hospital (typically before the ambulance ever reaches there) and two is they don't have to provide their top quality of care (so a hospital might have a two tier health system).

Yet both of these might be paranoid rantings, I have no idea how accurate they are.

[McTraveller]

So one question I have here - especially in the "critical" or "emergency" situations is: how do the care providers even know what someone's gender / sexuality is in the first place?

Or is the assumption that it's inferred from appearance and/or something like "I'm currently on these hormone treatments" when asked about current medication?

[Greiger]

I recently went to an ER for a blood test after a doctor nicked themselves with the Novocaine needle. (I think it was a weekend and all the regular blood test places were closed)  If you are awake and not in the fetal position from pain you are expected to fill out paperwork that includes a gender line.

Though yes I imagine there are also ways they can infer that in actual emergencies.

[Starver]

I'm going to immediately put on my skeptical glasses for that simply based on who is writing that and who organized the surveys involved. They obviously have a large monetary stake in making things seem as bad as they can.

My immediate first and second thoughts (can't remember which order, depends where in the article the respective cues were positioned for me to find them) is the "foo% of respondents reported..." bits of each issue given (if you don't have at least one of those issues, you're less likely to respond at all to a survey/questionaire with tickboxes for whether you had one or more problems to report) and that, though the article concentrated upon LGBTQ+ discriminations, it was quite clear that tbe law/rule/whatever being pused or reversed or somesuch provided potections to far more subgroups than that.

I therefore see potential bias in the reporting, and yet I am also alarmed that what seems to be a necessary levelling regulation that prevents multiple anti-group effects (I'm guessing its squishing is due to the "those seeking abortion care" bit, above all else, this being the most populist (anti)agenda issue in the relevant camp) is being neutered.  Although if such a rule is needed to guide doctors to be non-discrimantory (or is the only way to be able to fulfil their hypocratic oaths as they might want, in the face of whatever administrative pressures there are) then there's something else broken and this is more a band-aid than a splint.

[SalmonGod]

I'm going to immediately put on my skeptical glasses for that simply based on who is writing that and who organized the surveys involved. They obviously have a large monetary stake in making things seem as bad as they can.

Skepticism would be more reasonably directed at why the fuck the protections are being messed with, not how bad the problem is that they were preventing.  The onus would be on them to explain what their motivation is for removing those protections, if not to create problems for transgender people.

Seriously, why is open declaration of "WE DEMAND INSTITUTIONAL BLESSING TO BE ABLE TO HURT THESE DEMOGRAPHICS" being met with all this benefit of the doubt "Ok, that's worrying, but how bad do these people have it really?" lines of questioning.  I do not understand.

Edit:
Remember what I said about normalization?  It doesn't look like people being rounded up at gunpoint and put in camps by the government.  It looks like this right here.  A spike in death rates associated with treatable circumstances, with any data capture regarding the demographic that accounts for this spike being specifically avoided, is one example of what it does look like.

[NullForceOmega]

there's something else broken and this is more a band-aid than a splint.

This is fundamentally the issue with all such lawmaking honestly, no one addresses the problem, just the symptoms.

[Neonivek]

there's something else broken and this is more a band-aid than a splint.

This is fundamentally the issue with all such lawmaking honestly, no one addresses the problem, just the symptoms.

Well treating the problems are much more tricky politically for multiple reasons
1) Voters are stupid and don't know that things cost money
2) You are only elected for 4 years
3) People hate eachother

But I am being very... basic... I think our political system is set up more to deal with symptoms then to fix problems. We often rely on technology to fix the problems for us so we don't have to make the sweeping changes needed to create genuine growth.

And then there's the people who constantly try rip off the little band-aids that have been taped over it under the same pretense, yet never do anything about actually addressing the problem

That is true as well. A lot of the time it feels like politicians are spiteful and just go back and forth between party policies.

"Errr! You are providing equitable housing for the poor? But that isn't our plan! clearly it is bad. We will remove it and replace it with our own... uhh... later"

Though the general reasoning is usually "We don't want the American people to get used to it, because they it will never be able to be removed"

[NullForceOmega]

I understand your personal stake in this Caroline, but the band-aids are often as much of a problem as what they are supposed to be addressing.

And the reason people are doing these 'oh so horrible' things is due to the fundamental structure of the US government (which is hardly the only entity doing such things), simply put, the people in charge are doing what their loudest supporters want them to, and there are a hell of a lot of people in the US who don't understand, accept, or tolerate what are to them deviant lifestyles.

Getting mad about it doesn't work.  Screaming about it doesn't work.  If you aren't willing to actually DO something about it then the tyranny of the (perceived) majority rules here.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If I rolled my eyes any harder I'd be looking at my brain. There is no legitimate interest in the repeal of such a rule, in fact, the only plausible interest whatsoever is in the service of conscious discrimination. It is not a "band-aid" it is a basic form of protection that any group in America would "scream about" if they walked into a hospital and had a doctor shove them out over. Violation of the 14th Amendment, flat out. We declare classes protected because we can notice patterns of discrimination on no basis other than their class status, which is what this rule was about.

I smell Mike Pence's slimy hands all over this.

[NullForceOmega]

Could not possibly care any less MSH.  This is the government the people of the United States elected, we deserve every single horrible thing they do to us, because we should have prevented it.  I will quietly and despondently sit here in my home taking care of my children and wait for it to end, however that takes place.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Uh, if you don't care, then why are you bothering to discuss it?

[Neonivek]

Uh, if you don't care, then why are you bothering to discuss it?

Look he is from the Shivering Isles. You have to give them some leeway... I mean Sheogoth is his President.

[Greiger]

The people didn't elect it the electoral college did.  The people wanted hillary.  And the people who have any interest in getting rid of the whole ec are being systematically removed from politics entirely.  Only Democrats and Republicans are allowed at debates now for one thing.  Third parties are no longer allowed at debates unless they fall into very specific rules, and if I understand right the republicans and democrats need to both agree to them being present even then.

And if there is anything dems and republicans can agree on, it's that first past the post stays, the ec stays, and third parties need not apply.