60 Hospitals Cancelled Due to New Health Law...

[Patranus]

60 Hospitals Cancelled Due to New Health Law...
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/64034

But but but I thought the health care law was going to improve access.....

Obummer.

EDIT:
That link is working off and on, here is another

The new health care overhaul law – that promised increased access and efficiency in health care – will prevent doctor-owned hospitals from adding more rooms and more beds.

These hospitals are advertised as less bureaucratic and more focused on doctor-patient decision making. However, larger corporate hospitals say doctor-owned facilities discriminate in favor of high-income patients and refer business to themselves.

The new rules single out physician-owned hospitals, making new physician-owned projects ineligible to receive payments for Medicare and Medicaid patients.

Existing doctor-owned hospitals will be grandfathered in to get government funds for patients but must seek permission from the Department of Health and Human Services to expand.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/12/60-doctor-owned-hospitals-canceled-due-to-new-health-law/

 

[nick1985]

This bill will not increase the deficit either.

rofl, what a crock of shit.

 

[Patranus]

This bill will not increase the deficit either.

rofl, what a crock of shit.

So we are going to insure more people and have less hospitals.

Not really sure how that is going to work out

 

[blackangst1]

The new rules single out physician-owned hospitals, making new physician-owned projects ineligible to receive payments for Medicare and Medicaid patients.

bummer, dude. Now make your way down to the cookie cutter hospital like everyone else.

 

[Narmer]

If these hospitals discriminate in favor of wealthy people, I couldn't care less. Also, if they can live without the poor, what's stopping them for functioning without money from medicare or medicaid?

 

[JS80]

So we are going to insure more people and have less hospitals.

Not really sure how that is going to work out

Simple, rationing+price controls.

 

[blackangst1]

Simple, rationing+price controls.

I havent understood how price controls would work within the boundaries of the constitution...but anyway.

 

[heyheybooboo]

... The new rules single out physician-owned hospitals, making new physician-owned projects ineligible to receive payments for Medicare and Medicaid patients.

Oh, darn.

Now your physician can't refer you to a facility in which they have a financial interest.

I bet the Cons have their panties in a bunch over this --- it's one of the few things Bush consistently vetoed (twice).





--

 

[blackangst1]

Oh, darn.

Now your physician can't refer you to a facility in which they have a financial interest.

I bet the Cons have their panties in a bunch over this --- it's one of the few things Bush consistently vetoed (twice).





--

And you liberals love the fact you are preventing someone from being in business for themself and making a profit.

And BTW...it was an R who helped draft the bill in 2003 Bush vetoed (Grassley)

edit: I agree conflicts of interest can arise in doc owned hospitals; however, if, as one poster noted, they are targetting the rich, so what? If there's a market for it, you should be free to do business.

 

[Patranus]

Now your physician can't refer you to a facility in which they have a financial interest.

What exactly do you think "larger corporate hospitals" do?

 

[Fern]

If these hospitals discriminate in favor of wealthy people, I couldn't care less. Also, if they can live without the poor, what's stopping them for functioning without money from medicare or medicaid?

What?

Think this through a bit.

The new rules single out physician-owned hospitals, making new physician-owned projects ineligible to receive payments for Medicare and Medicaid patients.

So, if we don't like them discriminating against lower income patients we're just gonna have to prevent them from seeing any lower income patients. WTH? Does that make any sense?

Medicaid is ONLY for the poor. Obviously if they discriminate aginst low income patients they wouldn't be receiving any medicaid, now would they?

No, what this does is prevent doctor-owned facilities from ever having any poor patients. what's the point of that? Obviously there isn't a good one. It's already a problem finding doctors etc for people on mediciad, why make it worse?

Here you go:

However, larger corporate hospitals say doctor-owned facilities discriminate in favor of high-income patients and refer business to themselves.

So, Congress is giving a benefit to "larger corporate hospitals" by stoppping smaller doctor-owned facilities from competing with them, at least as far as the poor and the elderly..

Notice very little in this rule stops doctors from referring high-income patients to their own doctor-owned facility, in fact it ensures that's exactly who they must refer to themselves.

The poor and retirees (if they have private insurance Medicare may still pay a small portion of the bill) are the ones being limited here, because Medicare and Medicaid are the ones who won't pay. Working people can still use these doctor owned facilities because Medicare and Medicaid don't pay any of our HC bills.

No wonder doctors are angry.

Fern

 

[sportage]

Hopsitals closing? Wellmark is doing just fine...

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/02/17/business/17desmoines_CA0/17desmoines_CA0-popup.jpg

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/realestate/commercial/17desmoines.html

And to pay the bills:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...WS/Wellmark-rate-increase-will-go-into-effect

 

[Fern]

Oh, darn.

Now your physician can't refer you to a facility in which they have a financial interest.

I bet the Cons have their panties in a bunch over this --- it's one of the few things Bush consistently vetoed (twice).

--

This article, at least from what we can see in the article, has nothing to do with referrals.

Instead, it's "doctor -owned". Referrals aren't banned, doctor-owned facilities are because they compete with the large corporate owned hospitals.

Ha, an example of the Dems favoring large corporate donors (hospitals in this case).

Fern

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Woo! Are some of you under the impression that new hospitals are built in response to need? Chortle, snort, guffaw!

 

[Patranus]

Woo! Are some of you under the impression that new hospitals are built in response to need? Chortle, snort, guffaw!

If there wasn't a demand, they would go out of business now wouldn't they?

 

[Narmer]

What?

Think this through a bit.



So, if we don't like them discriminating against lower income patients we're just gonna have to prevent them from seeing any lower income patients. WTH? Does that make any sense?

Medicaid is ONLY for the poor. Obviously if they discriminate aginst low income patients they wouldn't be receiving any medicaid, now would they?

No, what this does is prevent doctor-owned facilities from ever having any poor patients. what's the point of that? Obviously there isn't a good one. It's already a problem finding doctors etc for people on mediciad, why make it worse?

Here you go:



So, Congress is giving a benefit to "larger corporate hospitals" by stoppping smaller doctor-owned facilities from competing with them, at least as far as the poor and the elderly..

Notice very little in this rule stops doctors from referring high-income patients to their own doctor-owned facility, in fact it ensures that's exactly who they must refer to themselves.

The poor and retirees (if they have private insurance Medicare may still pay a small portion of the bill) are the ones being limited here, because Medicare and Medicaid are the ones who won't pay. Working people can still use these doctor owned facilities because Medicare and Medicaid don't pay any of our HC bills.

No wonder doctors are angry.

Fern

The alternative would be for the government to force them to see lower-income patients. Instead of forcing them, the government is simply telling them that discriminatione means you don't get medicare or medicaid money. I think this is the better of the two options since these hospitals can cater to the wealthy all they want without having to worry about poor people utilizing their facilities. I don't understand how/why they couldn't formulate a business model around this.

 

[her209]

Can we even call these "hospitals"?

From Time:

While these places are known as specialty hospitals, most do not resemble acute-care, all-purpose community health-care institutions. For one thing, they tend to sell themselves on the promise of comfort, if not luxury, with at least a few offering wine with gourmet meals and on-campus hotels for friends and family. More importantly, about half don't have any kind of emergency department and of those that do, more than half have only one bed available, according to a 2008 report from the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services. Even more troubling to critics is the fact that, despite being physician-owned, only about 30% have a doctor on site at all times, and about two-thirds actually tell staff to call 911 in case of an emergency, according to the same report.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

If there wasn't a demand, they would go out of business now wouldn't they?

Demand does not equal need.

 

[Slew Foot]

Can we even call these "hospitals"?

From Time:

If someone wants to go to a fancy hospital/buy a fancy car/buy a fancy house/eat fancy food, why shouldn't they be able to?

 

[umbrella39]

More bullshit FUD from resident sock puppet.

I only know of a handful of doctor owned-hospitals in SE Michigan and most of them, like Garden City, are POS dumps, so who cares? Our entire health group (10+ hospitals in MI) is vamping up in anticipation of New Health laws and will happily absorb them and their small client base if they go under. So you're going to have to try harder than that to make your case that "access to care" is going to suffer. As if you gave a shit about that to begin with.

Here is an exact opposite story to yours about one of those doc owned hospitals here in Southfield who can and will do just fine with the New Health laws all the while operating in the shadow of a large system-owned Hospital:

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20100307/HEALTH/303079994#

I thought neotards were survival of the fittest kind of guys anyway?

Besides, where is it written or even implied that these doctor owned hospitals need to survive in the first place TO IMPROVE ACCESS? That is what your stellar commentary is "concerned" with right?

If they go under we'll expand MORE than we already are so you can quit fake caring about improving access now Zed. We got it under control. You just worry about your next math quiz and leave the adult stuff to us.

 

[blackangst1]

If someone wants to go to a fancy hospital/buy a fancy car/buy a fancy house/eat fancy food, why shouldn't they be able to?

Thats what I dont understand. And in their next move, congress will ban auto lots from exclusively selling cars over $100,000, and they must therefore off cars <$20,000. You know, to be fair.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

60 Hospitals Cancelled Due to New Health Law...
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/64034

But but but I thought the health care law was going to improve access.....

Obummer.

EDIT:
That link is working off and on, here is another

http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/12/60-doctor-owned-hospitals-canceled-due-to-new-health-law/

Gee, did you miss the part about "doctor-owned"?

Do you think that might change things, considering those would be FOR-profit? Cry me a river about some physicians that will only make 300k/yr, instead of $500k. They can order/refer/perform/read all the consults and tests they want, and make money off of it. Certainly no conflict of interest there.

 

[Narmer]

More bullshit FUD from resident sock puppet.

I only know of a handful of doctor owned-hospitals in SE Michigan and most of them, like Garden City, are POS dumps, so who cares? Our entire health group (10+ hospitals in MI) is vamping up in anticipation of New Health laws and will happily absorb them and their small client base if they go under. So you're going to have to try harder than that to make your case that "access to care" is going to suffer. As if you gave a shit about that to begin with.

Here is an exact opposite story to yours about one of those doc owned hospitals here in Southfield who can and will do just fine with the New Health laws all the while operating in the shadow of a large system-owned Hospital:

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20100307/HEALTH/303079994#

I thought neotards were survival of the fittest kind of guys anyway?

Besides, where is it written or even implied that these doctor owned hospitals need to survive in the first place TO IMPROVE ACCESS? That is what your stellar commentary is "concerned" with right?

If they go under we'll expand MORE than we already are so you can quit fake caring about improving access now Zed. We got it under control. You just worry about your next math quiz and leave the adult stuff to us.

lol

 

[Kappo]

Demand does not equal need.

So you are saying choice is a bad thing?

 

[Patranus]

Gee, did you miss the part about "doctor-owned"?

When did it become a bad thing in American to own your own small business?