|
In reading the various posts about Natasha Richardson and the obvious difference getting to hospital right away might have been with the outcome, I can't help but wondering about an uninsured person seeking treatment for a head injury. I have been without insurance, but have some now, if not the greatest. But I have been without it and had a small child without it for a period of time. And I wonder if an uninsured person with a head injury would be sent home or given tests to check for concussion or any brain bleeding or anything. I am just curious, because the thought is frightening to me if someone were just sent home with ibuprofen or something.
I know from personal experience regarding my depression and treatment. When I was obviously not doing very well, the doctor didn't send me to the hospital but asked if i was going to hurt myself. I said no and he sent me home. It may not have been the case, but I am confident that had I had insurance I would have been in the hospital. I was pretty bad at the time. I know it isn't the same thing, but I just can't help but wonder.... how differently is an insured person treated than an uninsured. And by no means do I assume all hospitals are like that or would do that.
Just wondering what folks thoughts are on this topic. I know that an uninsured person would generally be hesitant to go to the hospital for a head injury in the first place. Especially if they feel fine. I'm just thinking, especially after this public case of someone dying from a head injury, one might think more people who don't have insurance might not want to risk it... especially with children. though i think with the children the hospital might be more inclined to check and be sure. but i don't know. i guess i'm babbling again.
|