Rush Limbaugh Says Health Care System Is Fine and He Got No Special Treatment
So Rush Limbaugh’s heart is fine (for which I am glad), but unfortunately his doctors could do nothing about the stupid, which he flaunted immediately upon his release from the hospital in Honolulu:
It was unclear when Limbaugh would return to his top-rated radio show, with 20 million listeners weekly. But he did use the news conference to take a jab at Democrats and their top policy priority — healthcare reform that aims to give coverage to 47 million uninsured Americans and lower costs.
“Based on what happened to me here, I don’t think there is one thing wrong with the American healthcare system. It is working just fine,” he said.
Limbaugh, a multimillionaire, said he got no special treatment, but the staff made his stay “almost like a hotel.”
First of all, who said there was anything wrong with the American healthcare system? It’s first rate, if you have good health insurance or, like Limbaugh, are independently wealthy.
And second:
I don’t really have to explain why this is absurd, do I? If O.J. Simpson had said, after his very expensive dream team won him an acquittal on murder charges, “The U.S. system of justice is wonderful — I got the same treatment a poor kid with a public defender would have gotten if charged with the same crime,” we’d have said he was being ridiculous. If a rich Hollywood star caught with massive amounts of powdered drugs got sentenced to ritzy rehab and probation and said, “The system works — a street junkie would have gotten the same deal,” we’d just laugh.
That’s the equivalent of what Limbaugh is saying. He’s in no position to say a poor, uninsured person would have gotten the same treatment — that’s for poor and uninsured people to say.
Hat tip to Steve Benen.
Share This
With Medicare for all citizens, Rush would be just as healthy, and so would everybody else.
So if a poor person was admitted to the same hospital that Limbaugh was admitted to with the same symptoms, how would the care have been different? As I recall, medical providers cannot deny necessary treatment because of inability to pay. Now I'm sure Limbaugh got a lot of fringe benefits because he is rich – like a private room, good food, ect. – but if he got better actual medical care then isn't the hospital breaking the law?
Bull S**t!!
Good point and the point missed most by the Statist in their unquenchable thirst for control!
Andy is almost certainly correct that an uninsured person would have received the same care that Limbaugh did. The difference is financial – the uninsured person might be bankrupt after the hospitalization but Limbaugh can easily absorb any costs. To provide lesser care based on ability to pay is illegal and exposes the hospitals and physicians to huge penalties.
Limbaugh's comments are foolish though since they ignore the financial sequelae of the hospital admission and focus solely on the care given.
Interestingly celebrities often receive worse medical care than the average Joe since they are more likely to successfully dictate their own treatment – see Michael Jackson as one example and Limbaugh's own history of narcotic addiction as another. Picture Limbaugh bossing around physicians trying to run the show himself and you can imagine the potentially bad results.
Perhaps, if the oxycotin cowboy wasn't taking illegal drugs, his heart wouldn't be an issue today. Not to mention the Viagra he was busted with in the Dominican Republic, a place well known for the sexual exploitation of children. Insurance or no insurance, we need to live with our choices. Do we give every drunk a liver transplant? How about a set of lungs for a smoker? Can we get China to farm these organs for us? You could just go into a pen and choose your donor. Pricele$$!
Oxycotin is legal with a prescription and not hard to get illegally from what I hear and very easy to get addicted too. Viagra, again legal with a prescription and not hard to get illegally. Your fantasies of sexual exploitation of children in the Dominican Republic are your own and not something you should really share. If you are accusing Rush of this, that's probably not smart, but I consider the source. If you have proof it better be airtight. Yes, I'm fairly certain it has happened that we have given liver transplants to drunks and lung transplants to smokers; I can research that for you if you would like? As far as organ farming goes why China? Obviously, you must have gone into a chicken coop to get what resides between your ears!
“As I recall, medical providers cannot deny necessary treatment because of inability to pay.”
That's true.
“but if he got better actual medical care then isn't the hospital breaking the law?”
Errr. No. People with insurance get much MORE care than people that don't, although the hospital can say that they provided “necessary” care to someone that is indigent. The difference sounds slight, but it isn't.
Here is an example: People that have insurance are getting MRIs for broken bones and people that don't have insurance get simple x-rays. It can be easily argued that all that was needed was an x-ray, but “just to be safe” the person who had insurance got the more expensive treatment.
This is what is driving costs out of contro and degrades health care. Over-treatment has been proven in many cases to me more harmful than “adequate” treatment. CT scans, in partucular, often do more harm than good since cancer can occur 20 years later because of the over-radiation.
It could be argued that an indegent patient actully receives BETTER care than the well insured, since they are far less likely to be over-treated, but to assume that Limbaugh got the SAME treatment is fantasy.
Dear BA Mistake,
When you choose to disparage another commenter as you have done here when you say “you must have gone into a chicken coop to get what resides between your ears!”, you insult every well meaning and sincere commenter on this site. I've not seen you much here, but know this: we tend to disagree with respect and often cordialilty. TMV is home to rational discourse on significant issues, not a middle school, juvenile food fight like some of the other sites you may frequent. Please respect the tone and tenor of the site as well as the intelligence and good faith of other commenters. Thank you.
Just another clueless Limbaugh comment. One among many…
Limbaugh got no special treatment? Bullhockey.
He no doubt got a private room, perhaps even in the rich person's ward, where nursing care is one-on-one, with special food and the utmost attention of his doctors. He undoubtedly had VIP status, which, believe me, is the way to go. No plebian treatment for Rush!
Yet another shockingly ignorant Limbaugh proclamation. Is anyone really surprised that a millionaire many times over, receives better, more consistent, more attentive care? If so, I have a bridge to sell you.
Thanks, Tidbits, for speaking up.
For Limbaugh to make such a sweeping generalization based on one story (his own) is laughable. What if one poor person had a bad experience and wrote about it, saying the entire health care system was “bad”? Anecdotal material can garner attention, but apart from statistics can be misleading.
Limpbaugh wasn't admitted to a hospital that typically admits the indigant, it's one of the counytries better hospitals.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BU0EH201…
The Queens hospital is listed here as a top heart hospital:
http://health.usnews.com/health/best-hospitals/…
http://health.usnews.com/health/best-hospitals/
http://health.usnews.com/health/best-hospitals/…
http://www.hospital-data.com/hospitals/QUEEN%60…
This hospital didn't make the list, probably more Medicare…
http://www.hospital-data.com/hospitals/KAISER-F…
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firef…
Queens is a small hospital:
Beds – Total (Total number of beds in a facility, including those in non-Participating or non-licensed areas): 28
A comparison to the corporate hospital Kaiser:
Beds – Total (Total number of beds in a facility, including those in non-Participating or non-licensed areas): 244
What is considered necessary care for someone with Limbaugh's resources is most certainly different from what would be considered necessary care for an indigent patient. The indigent patient will generally receive the minimum that makes them healthy enough to get them out the door of the hospital with no follow up care. If you do not understand the difference that makes you must have absolutely no experience with modern health care.
Dear BAMistake America
hi there, and this is just a note to ask you to read the rules for commenters at the head of the Home page. The rules include not attacking writers or commenters, just going ahead and stating your facts, debating with whatever heat you got, teaching, linking, etc. TMV adheres to newspaper standards in language, so words you wouldnt see published in newspapers wont be on TMV either. We hope to hold to civil discussions at TMV, and that's part of how we effect it.
Admin has in the past when need be, and this still holds true, asked commenters to choose screen names that are one's real name or else a name that is short and not carrying 'the vernacular' in it, so others can respond easily.
Go read and come back. You're welcome here.
thanks.
dr.e
That is very true. But You can get always get a full medical coverage at the lowest price from http://bit.ly/68ShhE if you do your home work you can find the best plan.
Dear Commenters: You may note certain comments removed on this article. They are from spammers who are getting through TMV's spam net. The latest ruse is to apparently make a comment that sorta is on topic and then to load links that lead to the site of MotherWuddger's Spinomatic Tomato Press, or some such that appears to pay the spammer a few pennies for every hit.
Nothing against MotherWuddger's fine products.
dr.e
Of course the joke is on Rush. Hawaii has the lowest percentage of uninsured in the country because they have had an employer mandate to provide employees with health insurance for over thirty years. Or in terms he would understand, socialism. They also have the lowest medical costs in the country and would be exempt from most of the pending reforms.
Rush's statement above perfectly encapsulates what is wrong about Rush and his opinions. Of course the health care systems worked for him-he's rich as Croesus and (I would bet) has adequate health insurance. Plus, he's a celebrity. His experience would not have been the same if he were, say, working for WalMart, living paycheck to paycheck and supporting a family of any size. That's not to say that his health care would be of a lesser quality, but he doesn't have the additional stress of worrying about how he's going to pay for the care he's getting. He doesn't have to choose between paying his hospital bills and paying his mortgage, between buying his meds and buying food, between going to his doctor for followup treatment or taking his kids to the dentist, or between staying out of work on unpaid leave to recuperate or going back a week or two early because he can't go that long without a paycheck.
These thoughts would never occur to Rush, because he is incapable of seeing the world from any perspective other than the one provided by his middle America, upper-middle class upbringing. Those who hoped this would be a learning/growth opportunity for Rush are bound to be disappointed, because it can't be.
“he's rich as Croesus”
excellent reference point, havent seen that one in decades.
dr.e
Of course the comment from Rush was stupid. But it was not intended to be intelligent. It was intended to do the only thing he cares about: get himself attention. And it was widely successful at that. Yesterday I was sick so I had a lot of time to sit around and watch TV, and I was beside myself that news outlets actually carried his comments. Why is this news? I can understand an opinion show airing his comments and agreeing or disagreeing with them, but why is it material for a straight-up news outlet? I suppose you could argue that it is news because he is such an influential figure, but this is circular logic because the reason he is so influential is because the media pays so much attention to him. The guy's the biggest radio star imaginable. He doesn't need any help from the news media.
Edit: Oh, and I forgot to point out that left-wing bloggers can do their part by refraining from blogging about Rush and let his comments stand on their own.
Exactly. So much of Limbaugh's power and popularity is based on his driving liberals crazy, and liberals are always quick to oblige. The continuing fascination with Limbaugh from the left just gives him more credibility.
I would like to clarify the issue of hospital care between the insured and non-insured population. There is a definite difference in the hospital care rendered to each. Remember, in the ER the hospital is legally obligated to stabilize your health condition – they are not obligated to cure it.
Let me give you an example. Two 50 year men come into the ER complaining of chest pains, one insured the other not.. Both make it thru the triage nurse in roughly the same amount of time. When the doctor examines both patients he is likely to order a blood test to determine if enzymes are present indicating a heart attack. Assume the tests come back negative, the doc is likely to give both nitroglycerine and plavix or cumidin to thin the blood and alleviate the angina.
What comes next spells out the difference. The non-insured patient once blood tests show no heart attack will be discharged from the ER when the chest pains go away. The insured patient will be admitted and an angiogram scheduled (the test Limbaugh had where a catheter is strung up from a big blood vessel in the groin to the heart where “dye” is injected and the heart veins and arteries are examined on x-rays to check for blockages). This is a $6,000-$7,000 test and if a blockage is indicated a stent is placed opening the vessel – a $20,000 -$25,000 additional cost.
Meanwhile the uninsured patient may have to come back to the ER(or die ) in the future because his blockage was never examined. Take almost any health condition and this example illustrates the difference in care between insured and uninsured.
I must have hit a nerve. You should think for yourself.
Limbaugh came to manhood in an era when the nation had a military draft for the Vietnam war. He avoided service by having his physician certify his medical unfitness due to an “inoperable pilonidal cyst” and “a football knee from high school.”
He has said of the official poverty line, “$14,400 for a family of four? That's not so bad.”
In 2003, Limbaugh was forced to resign as a football commentator at ESPN amid allegations of racism, after he said in a telecast that Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb was overrated, given “extra credit” because the league and the media wanted a black quarterback to be successful.
Limbaugh, of course, has always called for harsh penalties for drug abusers, arguing that “if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.” After admitting his own addiction, he took a month off his radio show to undergo rapid rehab. He then spent the next several years battling Florida investigators who sought his medical records to investigate him for “doctor shopping” — the crime of obtaining the same prescription from more than one doctor, since Limbaugh's use of oxycodone had been far in excess of the amount any doctor would plausibly prescribe. Claiming a right to privacy, he was assisted in his courtroom appeals by the American Civil Liberties Union, a group he has often criticized before and after accepting their help. In a 2006 plea bargain, charges were dropped in exchange for Limbaugh's payment of $30,000, agreement to undergo 18 months of drug abatement therapy, and his agreement to submit to random drug testing.
In June 2006, Limbaugh had further drug problems when a bottle of Viagra was found in his luggage at the Palm Beach Airport. The prescription was not in Limbaugh's name, but no charges were filed against Limbaugh, who was returning from a vacation in the Dominican Republic with four male companions.
http://www.nndb.com/people/428/000022362/
What comes next spells out the difference. The non-insured patient once blood tests show no heart attack will be discharged from the ER when the chest pains go away.
This is absolutely false. Every ER physician in the US has it driven into his or her head that negative enzymes/ negative EKG do not rule out an MI and admission should be considered based on their index of suspicion. You think docs give patients Plavix and nitro then send them home? If you're giving Plavix (which rarely is an emergent medication anyway) you're looking to admit the patient.
As far as coumadin goes that takes 3 or 4 days to work, is not an emergency medication and has no immediate effect on chest pain. If you want to thin someone's blood quickly then you give heparin or LMWH. The amount of misinformation in your post is really astounding and I'd like to know where you heard this stuff.
Lawsuits don't care what kind of insurance a patient has, and ER physicians are not going to risk getting sued by deciding medical care based on insurance. The majority of ER docs do not work directly for the hospital and don't make any more or less whether the patient goes home or not.
DaGoat – I think you are naive to believe that none of what I described goes on. My wife's sister is an ER physician for the ER group that holds a contract on a large trauma center hospital in Minnesota. I've been having discussions with her for years on this issue. It's been a major interest of mine since my days as a senior executive in charge of thousands of HMO docs.
The ER group faces constant pressure from the hospital on their admitting practices, including a monthly review of admissions. Yes, there is spector of lawsuits which help balance the pressure from the hospital but the ER docs do not have a totally free hand. I am not a physician but what I described to you was exactly my treatment as a non-insured patient in the ER room (blood test, nitro & plavix and discharge) even with a history of 2 previous heart attacks. Previously, as an insured patient for chest pains they always did an angiogram (I've had 6 of them).
As far as lawsuits go, every physician is aware that indigent patients are not great lawsuit threats except in the most egregious cases. It's the well to do that are the highest risk for suits. Also, any number of hospitals are closing their ER's to cut down on the costs of treating non-insured patients. Hospitals and doctors are not altruistic entities, they are businesses and as such considerations of the bottom line are never far from the forefront.
Your wife's sister says she sends patients home who need urgent angiograms? And gives coumadin to people with acute chest pain, then sends them home? She gives sub-standard care since she knows the indigent are less likely to sue? I hope she has good insurance.
I like to keep my professional life separate from my internet life so will hold off on the specifics, but I have worked in the health care field for over 25 years and your claims are not consistent with any ER or hospital I've worked with. ER docs tend to err on the safe side with chest pain regardless of insurance.
The one thing I do agree with is insured patients tend to get too many angiograms. This is a function of how physicians are reimbursed, there is too much temptation to overdo them, and the current health care reform does nothing to address it.