Why is emergency medicine different than police, fire, and military?

I've brought this up within other threads and never received an acceptable answer. The Libertarians and free market folks always say something about the providers rights trumping the patients needs, but it's a bullshit argument.

If you're being robbed, the police come to help you free of charge. If your house is on fire, the fire department comes to save you (usually free of charge, although I'm aware that there are some places that charge for fire service). If you're taken hostage in a foreign country, the military will come and save you, free of charge. BUT, if you are injured in the robbery, fire, or hostage situation, a private company will come pick you up, take you to a hospital, and provide care for you, in most cases without your consent, and then they'll charge you out the ass for it. They'll charge you so much that you may wind up losing everything you own. You have virtually no control over it. There's no competition, no price checks, no discussion about price. You're just stuck with it.

Please tell me how this makes sense.

 

Confused?

 

Police: taxpayer funded
Fire dept: taxpayer funded
Military: taxpayer funded
Ambulance services: not taxpayer funded*
Hospitals: government regulations require them to render aid

*excluding municipal ambulance services, that still operate on a fee for services basis in most cases

 

To add some context, a few weeks ago, some friends of ours kid got in a car wreck. She swerved to miss a deer, ran off the road, and rolled the car. She was banged up, had some cuts and bruises, but was conscious, alert, and mobile. Nothing was sticking out, broken, gushing, etc. The emergency crew still called a helicopter and flew her to the University of Missouri hospital, about three hours away. The bill for the flight, $48,000 . How does nobody see the problem here?

 

But why? Why on both sides? If private, for profit (as hospitals claim to be) is so great, leading to massive innovations, etc, why aren't police, fire, and military privatized?

 

Exaggerate much?
If you lose everything you have because of an ambulance ride then you don't have much.
Whine much?
If you cannot consent they are saving your life so be thankful you are around to argue on the cost.
Fire:
Most areas charge for fire that I am familiar with.
Military:
Frequently not as we don't go invading all over the globe to rescue people (morons that go to NK come to mind)
Police:
And sometime they charge you, likely you whine on that also

So yes I am for the free market but if as in your example one party cannot consent then it is not really free anyway. Just as happens with minors etc. also. That said there should be some ability for emergency rooms to turn away those who cannot pay and are using it as a doc in the box.

 

So she accepted the ride by gun point or intimidation? If she was conscious, alert and mobile she could have insisted and didn't. Glad she is OK but....

 

16 year old kid. Considering the situation, few people are in a position to make a decision, but they're still obligated to pay the bill.

That's pretty much the point. In most medicine, but particularly emergency medicine, none of the free market principles apply, but the patient is still on the hook for the outrageous bill

 

Ah 16 is a bit different. Did she contact her folks? Still sounds a bit like a distorted story to be honest though you never know. Generally though don't scramble the chopper on a whim.

 

Patient consented. She got in the bird.

Having seen enough life flights get turned back, unless you're doing something different down there, unless it is absolutely necessary to drop a bird on scene and transport, the patient goes ground. Even after the bird is dispatched, until that patient is strapped and levitating the life flight can be cancelled at no cost to the (non) patient.

 

Sounds like emergency crews were playing it safe to the point of ridiculous. Kinda like what hospitals do when they order mri's and cat scans for injuries on the same level of seriousness as a hangnail. They want to be able to say that they did everything they could and avoid a law suit if the 1 in a million occurrence happens and the patient dies. Tort reform and meaningful changes to health care would probably help but we will never see that because both political parties are more interested in keeping the left and right at each others throats to safeguard their positions.

 

16 year old cannot consent is the interesting twist.

 

The flip of that is they were more concerned with catting me when I crashed than xrays. A lot of concern about internal bleeding. Good thinking on their part though I am to tough and only had a cracked rib and tendons that were tweaked 7 ways to Sunday. In contrast a guy rejected treatment after a crash at Barber and died from internal bleeding. Thus my comment on hard to say without first hand knowledge. They could have had legitimate concern of internal bleeding and wanted to cut time in transit.

 

Wouldn't be too sure about that.

It would not surprise me in the least if there aren't provisions in minor licensing that confer implied consent to medical attention in the event of an accident, and without her expressly denying the care she consented.

 

Their insurance didn't cover medical?

 

typically those bills are very very negotiable. And so long as you pay $1/week or make an "effort" to repay, you can never be denied service...lol.
If I max out & slow pay my Home Depot or Lowes credit card... you think Ace or Menards will give me the same amount of credit and allow me to run up my limit?

 

They said insurance covered 2000 and they were hoping auto insurance covered most of the rest. Still, it's BS. The consumer pays in the end via higher insurance rates.

 

If it were "free", the consumer would pay much more in the end via higher taxes.

 

Often times it's based on ability. If all you have to your name is a 97 Taurus and a $600.00 a month lease, slightly above poverty earnings with no savings you're right. But if you've got a 100k equity in your house and a 40k a year salary they'll take the house and a good percent of your salary, once all that's gone they'll settle for $1:00 a week.

 

Huh???? I have never in my life heard of someone having their house taken to cover medical bills.

Known a couple of long time cancer patients whose bill were way above payable and one still has his house while the other's widow still has hers.

Some one please explain how the hospital or doctor can take your house?
Edited to add
I have heard of Medicare taking the house after death or to pay for a nursing home, but not as long as the spouse is still living