Healthcare and hospitals should all be not-for-profit

originally posted by: xuenchen
But more than 80% of U.S. hospitals are public/non-profit.

And something like 87% of hospital beds are public/non-profit.

What's the problem?

Fast Facts on US Hospitals

The hospitals have to pay wages, pension, healthcare, and usually dental and all sorts of benefits to the workers. The hospitals are constantly expanding technology, that technology is not cheap at all. I would say that the hospitals purchases of this equipment and needing to have it paid for and the technicians wages is what is causing the big increase. A catscan and MRI are very expensive, so are the new X-ray machine technology that most are using now, tied to computers so the x-rays can be viewed elsewhere by doctors.

The technology requires more tests to be given to pay for the technology, tests that are not really necessary most times to diagnose something. The big debt by hospitals acquiring this is devestating to the smaller hospitals, they are forced to have doctors prescribe tests that are not needed.

Nobody is actually being greedy, they are trying to support their hospital which helps the community and they want other healthcare workers to keep their jobs. This is actually happening more in the public hospitals that are non-profit than in private hospitals that employ less workers.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I think I adressed the issue, but also consider myself conservative in terms of government control. Health care is complicated because the lobby power has not been adressed. Obama himself skirted around it. For all we know the two sides play there game just to screw us.

Like how Cory booker came out against generic drugs from Canada and then his pharma numbers were released. Guy loves the money.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: xuenchen
But more than 80% of U.S. hospitals are public/non-profit.

And something like 87% of hospital beds are public/non-profit.

What's the problem?

Fast Facts on US Hospitals

The hospitals have to pay wages, pension, healthcare, and usually dental and all sorts of benefits to the workers. The hospitals are constantly expanding technology, that technology is not cheap at all. I would say that the hospitals purchases of this equipment and needing to have it paid for and the technicians wages is what is causing the big increase. A catscan and MRI are very expensive, so are the new X-ray machine technology that most are using now, tied to computers so the x-rays can be viewed elsewhere by doctors.

The technology requires more tests to be given to pay for the technology, tests that are not really necessary most times to diagnose something. The big debt by hospitals acquiring this is devestating to the smaller hospitals, they are forced to have doctors prescribe tests that are not needed.

Nobody is actually being greedy, they are trying to support their hospital which helps the community and they want other healthcare workers to keep their jobs. This is actually happening more in the public hospitals that are non-profit than in private hospitals that employ less workers.

This is true for hospitals. It's pharmaceutical and insurance companies publicly traded they all bow down to and have to comply with that are the big issue. Right down to pharmaceuticals writing drug treatment procedures.

Notice how few dr's, pharmacies, and drug companies have people being put in jail for the opioid crisis? Hospitals were part of that problem, they were more the street dealers though just trying to survive.

originally posted by: blueyedevilwoman
Huh?

I said that the Declaration of Independence is not a governing document of our United States. It's not a part of the Constitution, it's not a guarantee of anything, but a list of reasons why we were declaring our independence from Britain.

What part of that don't you understand? (That's not meant to be snarky, even though I know it may come across that way)

I think this argument is over life, not happiness.

Happiness is a choice.

Not always. But my explanation of the reality that "life" is noted to be a natural right and not a government-provided and -protected right should be sufficient to explain what I'm talking about. My parenthetical point about happiness was just an aside (hence the parenthesis...just like here).

What about my right to buy apricot seeds from a health food store then? One of many plants I am now prohibited from buying to treat my own health issues.

That's not a protected right, but it is a red herring. Hell, I'd be interested to see a list of things that are guaranteed/protected to be an item available for purchase in the U.S.

You do, however, have the right to grow your own apricots and harvest your own seeds. I agree with the tangential point that you're making, but it's a false equivalency to the discussion of protected natural rights and whether or not "life" (or, in this context, the false equivocation that life equates to medical treatment) is one of those.

Bovine excrement.

They wont let you die in an e.r., but they sure as hell will not look for health issues causing you problems much less treat them.

Right, so you agree with my statement, where I said these exact words that you replied to: "Every single person, from the homeless guy under the bridge to President Trump, will be treated in an emergency situation at a U.S. hospital, regardless of their ability to pay."

I bolded that part for you to show you that I was speaking about emergency situations only. And, yes, you will get a cast for a broken bone, even if you have no insurance. My mother was an E.R. nurse for years, and then moved on to be the director of a hospital concerning the implementation of aspects of the PPACA on the administrative side (and then took on the job of compliance officer as well), and I'll trust her comments on the issue over yours. I literally was talking to her about this issue a few days ago.

Insurance companies are getting paid from all ends. The dr. The patient. The hospital. The nurse. The government. .....everyone is basically forced to be the hooker to the insurance companies that dont actually do, or produce ANYTHING!

I know...that's why the mandate to purchase insurance under the PPACA is hated by so many. At least before that debacle of a law went into effect, we had the choice (in the essence that 'happiness is a choice,' I guess) to purchase health insurance or not.

On top of that....leaves, seeds, roots, and practicing (actual) medicine can all land you in prison.

This is all by design, if I can figure it out, anyone can.

I fully understand this--my wife is big on natural remedies, essential oils, organic gardening, and all of that line of stuff. I subscribe to much of it, too, and I fully agree that there is a larger plan afoot to suppress and even criminalize remedies that can avoid someone having to purchase someone from a drug company.


But then again, I'm pretty much for abolishing the FDA and re-evaluating the way that the government regulates drugs.

Kill off the poor first, then the next group, skilled blue collar replaced by 3-d printers, then the lower end white collar will be selected as our technological advances gradually make every working person obsolete.

I'm not quite sure that you hit the nail on the head on this one--I just think that it has to do with getting paychecks from Big-Pharma lobbyists and controlling the citizenry of America. Adults should be able to ingest anything that they want for any reason--I don't need the FDA or government telling me what I can and cannot ingest.

So, can we agree that we should rid our nation of the mandate to buy medical insurance, possibly get rid of the FDA (at least in its current form), and be able to eat whatever we think will have a healing effect on our bodies? Is that common ground that we can find?

a reply to: seasonal
No, it's irresponsible to mess with the medical industry from a governmental perspective--hell, that's one of the major reasons why costs have skyrocketed over the past few decades.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I think there are many many reasons that health care cost so much, and govt regs are one of them.

a reply to: rickymouse
I fully agree with your assessment, but just imagine, if health insurance were actually insurance and not what they currently are, the amount of people employed just to deal with insurance companies would drop dramatically, dropping the cost of doing business.

Then couple that with the reality that a lot of people don't/can't pay their hospital bills in a timely manner, and that can't get written off by the hospital, so it gets reimbursed by raising the cost of services and supplies--which is something that has to be done in business. If a store gets robbed a lot, it has to increase prices in order to compensate for the lost income.

The problem that I notice with many who make claims about greed and over-charging is that they simply don't understand the basic math of doing business--either that, or they willfully ignore it to further an ideological agenda.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: blueyedevilwoman
Huh?

I said that the Declaration of Independence is not a governing document of our United States. It's not a part of the Constitution, it's not a guarantee of anything, but a list of reasons why we were declaring our independence from Britain.

What part of that don't you understand? (That's not meant to be snarky, even though I know it may come across that way)

I think this argument is over life, not happiness.

Happiness is a choice.

Not always. But my explanation of the reality that "life" is noted to be a natural right and not a government-provided and -protected right should be sufficient to explain what I'm talking about. My parenthetical point about happiness was just an aside (hence the parenthesis...just like here).

What about my right to buy apricot seeds from a health food store then? One of many plants I am now prohibited from buying to treat my own health issues.

That's not a protected right, but it is a red herring. Hell, I'd be interested to see a list of things that are guaranteed/protected to be an item available for purchase in the U.S.

You do, however, have the right to grow your own apricots and harvest your own seeds. I agree with the tangential point that you're making, but it's a false equivalency to the discussion of protected natural rights and whether or not "life" (or, in this context, the false equivocation that life equates to medical treatment) is one of those.

Bovine excrement.

They wont let you die in an e.r., but they sure as hell will not look for health issues causing you problems much less treat them.

Right, so you agree with my statement, where I said these exact words that you replied to: "Every single person, from the homeless guy under the bridge to President Trump, will be treated in an emergency situation at a U.S. hospital, regardless of their ability to pay."

I bolded that part for you to show you that I was speaking about emergency situations only. And, yes, you will get a cast for a broken bone, even if you have no insurance. My mother was an E.R. nurse for years, and then moved on to be the director of a hospital concerning the implementation of aspects of the PPACA on the administrative side

Tell your mom to call Bay Minette, Fairhope, Foley, Al. E.R. and say she has a broke arm and no insurance.

You get a couple xrays, a ace bandage and a note to see a orthopedic.

Arm, leg, whatever.

Exception being compound fractures.

Dont get sick or injured in the Baldwin County Jail either, unless you have money or insurance. Otherwise, you better be in good with the church.

I'm not quite sure that you hit the nail on the head on this one--I just think that it has to do with getting paychecks from Big-Pharma lobbyists and controlling the citizenry of America. Adults should be able to ingest anything that they want for any reason--I don't need the FDA or government telling me what I can and cannot ingest.

So, can we agree that we should rid our nation of the mandate to buy medical insurance, possibly get rid of the FDA (at least in its current form), and be able to eat whatever we think will have a healing effect on our bodies? Is that common ground that we can find?

Throw in banning the insurance companies altogether, and yeah we can share common ground.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The medical bills reflect payment to shareholders. Through insurance and through pharmaceuticals.

Can you provide an ethical argument for profit medicine?

Profit meaning on top of expense and research.

Seriously the conflict of int. Problem is so bad we aren't even making stocks of disease and pandemic medicine since the profit for research isn't there.

a reply to: blueyedevilwoman

Yep all the free marketers out there should be thrilled to get out of corporate socialized med insurance.

I think we only need to look around the world where some how Columbia have better medical out comes than the US. There is a better way to do this, but the someone is going to get less $$$$. And the only way that is OK is when it is the "little people" getting less.

a reply to: luthier

True, stopping profit does not mean no R+D. That is one of the scare tactics used.

a reply to: seasonal

It also doesn't mean government taking it over, the non profits can compete.

The goal of Healthcare should be treating patients not profit. Not fully treating is too easy when the people designing the drugs and treatment control tell patents and research.

a reply to: luthier

Agreed. This is not rocket science. There are literally 30 countries that do this better and for less $$$$.

Our system is somewhere in the 30's with patient outcomes when compared to other counties and is the most expensive in the whole world.

a reply to: seasonal

The irony is for profit Healthcare requires a lot more regulations. The worst part is they usually happen after injuries and death.

I just read about a treatment for under ten year old bi polar children that was completely false when retried in abother trial. Not only was the drug not effective for treatment, the diagnosis wasn't even good.

And where are the dr's, pharmacies, and drug companies behind bars for the opioid epidemic?

Talk about power. We arrest guys for selling refer but not corporations for creating an epidemic of drug addiction? Someone gets their checks signed by the offending parties I think...I could be being conspiratorial but,..

a reply to: luthier

That's true.

My buddy had back cancer, removed it but was on some very serious narcs for pain.

Then the opium based abuses started all over the US. Did the Dr.'s writing scripts go to jail? Nope now everyone gets to go to another Dr. they are called pain management.
This adds HUGE costs to the med industry and they are happy to get it.

a reply to: seasonal

I used to compete in judo, wrestling, and bjj. I would go to the Dr to make sure I wasn't seriously injured, somewhere around 2000 everytime I went they offered me pills. This was after the conversation stating I just want to know if I broke something so I can start rehabbing. I can't think of anything worse than taking pain medicine and rehabbing and injury.

Sprain my ankle "want some pills" tweak my neck "want some pills"

I personally like to know when I am pushing my injury to far, but maybe that's just me.

So now we have even highschool athletes getting hooked and it was a big mystery I guess until about last year how this happened.

a reply to: luthier

One word money.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: xuenchen
But more than 80% of U.S. hospitals are public/non-profit.

And something like 87% of hospital beds are public/non-profit.

What's the problem?

Fast Facts on US Hospitals

The hospitals have to pay wages, pension, healthcare, and usually dental and all sorts of benefits to the workers. The hospitals are constantly expanding technology, that technology is not cheap at all. I would say that the hospitals purchases of this equipment and needing to have it paid for and the technicians wages is what is causing the big increase. A catscan and MRI are very expensive, so are the new X-ray machine technology that most are using now, tied to computers so the x-rays can be viewed elsewhere by doctors.

The technology requires more tests to be given to pay for the technology, tests that are not really necessary most times to diagnose something. The big debt by hospitals acquiring this is devestating to the smaller hospitals, they are forced to have doctors prescribe tests that are not needed.

Nobody is actually being greedy, they are trying to support their hospital which helps the community and they want other healthcare workers to keep their jobs. This is actually happening more in the public hospitals that are non-profit than in private hospitals that employ less workers.

It's a thousand things creating the increase..

Your got insurance profits, hospital shareholder profits (both which I think could be eleminated) and pharmaceutical company profits.(which if I'm right are half paid for by tax dollars, but I can see how you might want to maintain somewhat private.

Then you have the fact the insurance companies used to just basically give hospitals a blank check and still somewhat do...

Then you have insane amounts of over testing.. and tens of thousands spent on drugs that best case extend life a week...all on the insurance tab we all pay..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

One of the major problems I can see is that with share holders, you damn well better have year over year profit growth. This can mean that cost to consumers go up, this means that $200 blood test is now $210. Only to satisfy the constant growth in profits.