It's the weekend! I felt it was time to take a break from the weighty Right to Health Care series. What better way to relax than with online psychics?

At Online Psychic, you are invited to test your connection to a psychic. For FREE. Who could resist?

The link took me to a screen showing five face cards: K♥ J♣ Q♠ K♠ J♦ . Scrolling text (as if someone were... typing in real time!) informed me that a live connection was being established, then instructed me to pick a card and concentrate on it. The message warned that there may not be a strong psychic connection between us, in which case I should come back tomorrow.

I clicked "Continue," and Nancy's scrolling text told that me there was a strong psychic connection between us (oh goodie!) and that she had replaced the card I chose. And indeed, the card I chose had been replaced... as had been all four other cards: Q♣ K♦ Q♥ K♣ J♥ . And now I was invited to receive a more detailed reading about my life from Nancy for the low, low price of just $29.95.

Uh huh. Moving on...

At Free Psychic Network, I was presented with a box in which I was invited to type a question. I typed my question and clicked "Submit," and was carried to a page where I could submit my question (again) and have the answer e-mailed to me. I cleverly observed that this was a different site called Live Person, so apparently the question box was an ad. It's not an encouraging sign when your psychic subcontracts.

Nevertheless, I scrolled down and found a button for a Free Psychic Reading. No promises of a live psychic on the other end for me! My reading was:

Fortunate Encounter

I see a fortunate encounter with a stranger in your future.
The Crystal Ball Is Clear.
An nexpected chance meeting will provide a spring board for your carreer. (sic)

So my psychic is an optimist, but not a gifted typist.

Next I found Psychic Earth, which announces "Totally Free Psychics For Free Absolutely Free Psychic readings Online." A big golden button on the homepage advertises "Online readings only 1.20 (sic) per minute! Order here." The fine print at the bottom of the page (under the fold, of course) notes that "free readings are offered in the free reading room during scheduled times." The "free reading room" is a chatroom that was empty when I visited it.

So I ended up 0 for 3. I guess I need to find a better way to spend my weekend.

The U.S. Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, section 1867(a) of the Social Security Act, in 1986. It requires three things of hospitals:

• imposes an affirmative obligation on the part of the hospital to provide a medical screening examination to determine whether an "emergency medical condition" exists;
  
• imposes restrictions on transfers of persons who exhibit an "emergency medical condition" or are in active labor, which restrictions may or may not be limited to transfers made for economic reasons;
  
• imposes an affirmative duty to institute treatment if an "emergency medical condition" does exist.

--EMTALA.com FAQ

Particularly notable is the lack of a provision for reimbursement of the hospital. If the patient is not covered by private insurance or Medicaid/Medicare, and cannot pay the bill, the hospital must eat the loss. One way hospitals may offset the loss is by increasing charges for paying patients. Since Medicaid/Medicare has fixed reimbursement rates, and most private insurance also has fixed rates set by contract, that means the uninsured who are able to pay out-of-pocket often subsidize the uninsured who aren't.

Outside the emergency room and EMTALA, medical emergencies are handled by public safety agencies. When a person calls for an ambulance for a medical emergency, states generally require emergency medical personnel to respond, regardless of whether there is an ability to pay.

The principle underlying both EMTALA and the state-imposed duty for EMS to respond is that everyone has a right to be treated in case of emergency. It seems that American society is comfortable with this principle. Do you agree that there is a right to receive emergency medical treatment regardless of ability to pay? If so, who should pay?






del.icio.us

American society already recognizes certain privileges to health care. Considering these would make a good start to a discussion of whether there is a right to universal health care (UHC).

Health care in prisons and jails

Jail inmates who suffer medical emergencies are entitled to receive care, and prisoners also receive basic medical care for chronic conditions while in custody. In some cases, the health care offered by prisons is considered to be quite good. When prisons fail to provide adequate care, the federal government may step in to make sure it is available, as it did in California in 2005; there may also be lawsuits, such as those beleaguering the contractor Prison Health.

There has been some discussion of charging inmates for care they receive while in custody, but no serious programs that do so (to the best of my knowledge). Since inmates are by and large indigent (being unable to work for an income outside the prison), charging them for services seems rather nonsensical.

Arguments for providing care to inmates include the obvious, that their incarceration makes it impossible for them to seek care themselves, as well as the practical, that providing care helps prevent outbreaks of disease. But do they have a right to it?




del.icio.us

The question of a "right" to health care has obsessed my mind for the last several months. Unlike most ideas, which tend to pop in and out, this one has stuck with me, which means I should address it here.

First consideration: Why has this particular question stuck with me? Because, I think, it is the crux of the matter of whether and how universal health care (UHC) should be made available. If there is no "right" to health care, then it is much more difficult for supporters to argue that UHC is in the best interests of the U.S.

Thus I am starting a series on health care rights. If you have an opinion, yea or nay, on UHC, share it in a comment or e-mail me (address in my profile, linked to in the sidebar) if you are interested in a guest post.

Don't miss a post in this series on health care rights! Subscribe now.




del.icio.us

Crossword Bebop has a post about Lake Superior State University's 2008 list of banned words and phrases (and another about whether any of 2007's exiles should be rehabilitated). I'm using that post as a springboard for starting my own list of nominations. Here goes:

* Rant as a synonym for "opinion piece." It's overused and hard on the ears, too.
* To perfection, preceded by any culinary verb (cooked, grilled, etc.) for being grossly overused (pun intended) and for being meaningless. There is no "perfection" in most cooking techniques, only "right" and "wrong."
* Go down, as in, "Here's how it went down." If you are a soldier discussing a combat situation, or a cop discussing criminal violence, you may be allowed an exception. Otherwise, forget it. You just sound like a wanna-be.
* Spinning in his (her) grave. It was funny as a form of hyperbole the first time. Now it has lost its impact and is just macabre.
* Anti-choice as a synonym for "anti-abortion," for being disingenuous.
* Preborn baby, nominated in the spirit of balancing the list politically, for just plain sounding stupid. For the record: I am ardently pro-life. I just hate this term.
* Illegal alien. "Alien" lost its common meaning as "foreigner" long ago, and now it means "non-human extraterrestrial." That makes it an annoyingly dehumanizing form of rhetoric when applied to people.
* Breed when applied to humans. Often found in constructions like, "People like that shouldn't be allowed to breed" or "People should take parenting classes before they breed." This ugly term ties with "illegal alien" for most dehumanizing. Breeding is for animals; humans have children.
* Literally -- conditionally banned. It may be used as the antonym of "figuratively" (its literal meaning), but never again as a modifier to indicate intensity.
* Sales event was banished in 2005. I would like to affirm my support for eternal banishment of this term.

What would you nominate for the list?

LSU's complete list is here.




del.icio.us

Here is a selection of titles for more information on depression and anxiety disorders.

	Dr. Edward Hallowell is a psychiatrist whose writing I admire highly. Amazon.com has this to say about his book Worry: "Illustrating his theories with the personal stories of and dialogues with clients, Hallowell provides a full picture of the ordinary yet chronic worry-problems." It also claims the author "emphasizes the physical, not the psychological aspect of worrying," which I take to mean that relaxation techniques are a major theme of the book. When Panic Attacks is written by a psychologist and focuses more on eliminating "stinking thinking." These are techniques proven effective by psychological research, not just psychobabble.
	Dr. Hallowell is also a loving father, and I trust his advice on helping children avoid the ravages of depression in later life. He recommends emphasizing optimism over achievement and confidence over competition. Biddulph is an Australian psychologist who appears to have a behavioral approach to teaching children to avoid the patterns that lead to anxiety and mood disorders, combined with an emphasis on family connections. Sounds like good medicine, since social connections can prevent adult mood disorders and cognitive-behavioral therapy is one of the most effective treatments ever devised.
	Depression affects everyone close to the person who is ill. It's important for family and close friends to keep their own mood and spirits healthy. This book provides advice not just on supporting the depressed person, but on holding him or her accountable and on keeping one's own self well.
	A general reference work on depression and other mental disorders. This is not a self-help books and does not promote an agenda; it merely provides information.

del.icio.us