What is "emergency care"?
By speakeasy
@speakeasy (4171)
United States
September 24, 2007 12:42pm CST
To me, "emergency care" is treatment received in an emergency room or urgent care center for broken bones, strokes, heart attacks, stab wounds, being in labor, gun shot wounds, acute appendicitis, etc.
After the initial diagnosis and immediate treatment of the condition, additional care received is no longer "emergency care".
For individuals without medical insurance or funds to pay for their medical care; we have systems of funding from local, state, and federal funding to pay for all of this.
The federal government appears to agree with me about what constitutes "emergency care". The federal governmetn has a fund set aside to reimburse states for ememrgency care provided to any uninsured person regardless of citizenship or immigration status.
Non-"emergency care" is NOT reimbursed by the federal government for people who are illegally in this country AND many states and local governments also deny care for non-emergency conditions.
New York state, however, seems to feel that taxpayer dollars should be used for these non-emergency procedures for illegal immigrants and wants the entire country's tax dollars to pay. They have been trying to claim that expensive treatments like chemotherapy are "emergency care" for illegal immigrants and have been filing claims with the federal government to try to be reimbursed.
This is coming at a time when our own citizens are going to other countries to reduce medical expenses. We have a lot of citizens who are using medical services in Canada, Costa Rica, India, and even Mexico. Here in AZ, we have US citizens who go to Mexico every day for lower cost prescriptions, medical, vision, and dental treatments.
If Mexico's medical system is good enough for US citizens; it is good enough for it's own citizens. If it is a REAL emergency; then I do not mind my tax dollars paying the bill; but, once the "emergency" is over or under control; illegal immigrants should be deported back to their own country to finish the treatment.
What do you think about this? Am I being too harsh or not harsh enough?
1 response
@whiteheather39 (24403)
• United States
25 Sep 07
"If Mexico's medical system is good enough for US citizens; it is good enough for it's own citizens. If it is a REAL emergency; then I do not mind my tax dollars paying the bill; but, once the "emergency" is over or under control; illegal immigrants should be deported back to their own country to finish the treatment."
I agree with this statement but I also have to say that I do mind because if they had not come to this country illegally then the emergency would not have happened here so I do not feel it is my duty to pay anything at all for them
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
25 Sep 07
Well, I consider illegal immigrants to be no better and no worse than an animal. If I saw an animal that was hurt, I would be willing to take it to the nearest vet for emergency treatment; regardless of how it got there (born locally, lost, abandoned, wandered or flew across a border, etc.).
However, treatment past that point, I would expect the animals owner to pay for or in the case of wildlife, the state or federal agency in charge of that duty.
Personally, I would like to see the federal government bill the illegal immigrant's home country for the cost of the emergency care also; but, right now that isn't going to happen.
In a real emergency; you only have 3 choices anyway:
1) ignore the situation and hope they die or go away
2) put a bullet through the brain to stop their sufferring
3) treat them and get them stabilized so they can be safely moved
Choosing option 1 or 2, gets you in trouble. So, we are kind of stuck with option 3.
@whiteheather39 (24403)
• United States
25 Sep 07
This comment is probably going to get my star reduced a few more percents but...I think animals are more deserving as they have not broken the law or committed numerous crimes. Animals always will come first with me.


