60 Hospitals Cancelled Due to New Health Law...

[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.

This has nothing to do with doctor-owned facilities discriminating against lower income patients. that's your (mis) interpretation of it.

If they are refusing to see lower income people and you don't like that, you don't then make a law forcing them to refuse to see lower income people.

What this law can only achieve is to force lower income and retireees type patients to go to a large corporate Hospital (instead of a physician-owned hospital).

It's a benefit for their corporate donors. (Eliminating this option for the poor or the elderly in no way benefits the poor or the elderly)

Fern

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

So you are saying choice is a bad thing?

Nope, I'm saying the loss of those 60 hospitals is hardly a tragedy.

 

[Bateluer]

Nope, I'm saying the loss of those 60 hospitals is hardly a tragedy.

Since the intent of the bill was to lower cost and improve access, combine this news with the other laundry list of negatives, and this bill is even more of a disaster.

Edit - Looks like ATPN has overwhelmed the news site, I get a 'Server Busy Error'.

 

[Corn]

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.

So, profit is good when the hospital is corporate owned, but bad when doctor owned? Another moron exposes himself. Thanks.

 

[blackangst1]

Nope, I'm saying the loss of those 60 hospitals is hardly a tragedy.

Always nice to see people relish in the demise of people's livlihoods and unemployment. You must be a Republican.

 

[her209]

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

If there was demand, they wouldn't go out of business now wouldn't they?

 

[Corn]

More bullshit FUD from resident sock puppet.

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#

Speaking of bullshit, you obviously didn't read your own link you moron. Here's a nice quote:

Jones said physician-owners are concerned about federal legislation aimed at banning or curtailing the growth of physician-owned hospitals. The American Hospital Association supports a variety of restrictions.

“This would affect us very negatively and not allow us to grow in programs and services to the community,” Jones said.

In proposed federal health care reform bills, the Senate and House versions contain provisions that would ban new physician-owned hospitals. The ban would not go into effect until 2014 and would grandfather in the nation's 200 existing physician-owned hospitals.

But the bills also would prevent the hospitals from opening new beds or building new operating rooms.

Are you stupid or just a liar? Pick one.

 

[her209]

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?

If they pay 100% of the bill out of pocket then they should be able to go where ever they want to.

 

[Corn]

Always nice to see people relish in the demise of people's livlihoods and unemployment. You must be a Republican.

I saw what you did there.

 

[Corn]

If they pay 100% of the bill out of pocket then they should be able to go where ever they want to.

Another retard joins the discussion. Medicare sets the prices for the services it pays out, regardless of the hospital that bills. A "fancy" hospital doesn't bleed more out of medicare than any other hospital. So, please tell us what exactly your objection to a small hospital is versus a corporate owned hospital.

 

[Balt]

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?

They can still build them if they want, it will just be harder for them to be profitable.

 

[her209]

Another retard joins the discussion. Medicare sets the prices for the services it pays out, regardless of the hospital that bills. A "fancy" hospital doesn't bleed more out of medicare than any other hospital. So, please tell us what exactly your objection to a small hospital is versus a corporate owned hospital.

Here's a thought. Maybe the corporate owned hospital should refer money losing and low-margin patients to the small doctor-owned hospitals all the while keeping the money makers. I guess that would be alright with you.

 

[Corn]

Here's a thought. Maybe the corporate owned hospital should refer money losing and low-margin patients to the small doctor-owned hospitals all the while keeping the money makers. I guess that would be alright with you.

I knew you'd be too stupid to give a real answer.

 

[Corn]

To further elaborate my feelings of your non-answer, chew on this: These hospitals are being banned from accepting medicare patients--who would, ironically, be the "low-margin patients", right? So, what makes you think that they would be turning away these patients if they are upset that they can't even admit them?

While I did ask a question, I'm really not that interested in whatever idiotic reply you might come up with, so save your breath.

 

[Nemesis 1]

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

Your right they are angry . I was just at the dentist and he is pissed. Alot of talk about Doctors having to relocate to were they are needed. Thats just the first step .

 

[Noobtastic]

Simple, rationing+price controls.

Bingo.

Dems go on and on about the glory of free healthcare.

They need a BASIC lesson in math.

There is only X amount of dollars to cover Y health needs. It doesn't matter if every citizen has coverage, there is only so much money to go around.

In places like Europe and Canada, price controls dominate the government. You can only see this dentist so many times a year, must wait 6 months before MRI, cannot receive medication until next quarter, etc.

When the economy is tanking, rationing replaces price-controls.

In Britain right now, the government is slashing the health care budget because its bloated. Administration costs take up way too much cash.

But it took awhile to do this, because 1 in 60 British citizens for the NHS. British people aren't going to vote in politicians who want to lay them off.

Funny though, the doctors and physicians don't rely on government HC. They have private insurance. Same in Australia.

For those who have money...private is the way to go. IF you get cancer you're fucked.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

So, profit is good when the hospital is corporate owned, but bad when doctor owned? Another moron exposes himself. Thanks.

Comprehension fail. Guess the whole "for profit" comment went over your head.

If you had actually bothered to read my post, physician owned "hospitals" are for-profit, and those physicians have plenty of opportunity to refer only "good" (as in paying) patients to their place, while sending the less insured (or non-insured) to regular hospitals. And since they own it, they have $$ incentive to order extra tests, do extra billable procedures.

No, you may be OK with practices like this, but I am not.

No non-profit corporate hospitals are closing, only cash-cow places that are done to maximize a physicians $$. If and when it becomes non-profitable to them, they will simply close, and go back to seeing all patients in a regular hospital.

What is it that people say? Privatize profits, and socialize losses? So I guess you are good with that. I hope you supported the wall street bailout with a view like that.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

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

When you use it to abuse the system? That's OK? It's OK to skim well-insured patients to maximize your profit, while dumping the rest to a public (or private non-profit) hospital? Is that the American way in your mind?

Otherwise, you are just trolling with stupid comment.

 

[blackangst1]

To further elaborate my feelings of your non-answer, chew on this: These hospitals are being banned from accepting medicare patients--who would, ironically, be the "low-margin patients", right? So, what makes you think that they would be turning away these patients if they are upset that they can't even admit them?

While I did ask a question, I'm really not that interested in whatever idiotic reply you might come up with, so save your breath.

Fern already asked this, for the most part. The silence is your answer.

 

[blackangst1]

When you use it to abuse the system? That's OK? It's OK to skim well-insured patients to maximize your profit, while dumping the rest to a public (or private non-profit) hospital? Is that the American way in your mind?

Otherwise, you are just trolling with stupid comment.

Thats right. Because non profit hospitals would neeever do things like over bill...over prescribe...or over treat. Good thing huh?

 

[JSt0rm]

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.

ownt

 

[rudder]

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).

--

My ortho surgeon did my surgery in a "hospital" that he was part owner in. It was approved by my insurance. The costs were available up front as was his stake in ownership.

And I had to wait a couple of months before he would perform the surgery on me to see if alternate treatment worked.

Where is the malfunction in this system?

 

[Patranus]

My ortho surgeon did my surgery in a "hospital" that he was part owner in. It was approved by my insurance. The costs were available up front as was his stake in ownership.

And I had to wait a couple of months before he would perform the surgery on me to see if alternate treatment worked.

Where is the malfunction in this system?

You forget, Obama asserts that doctors choose to amputate people limbs because they make a higher profit on the procedure.

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-docto...cause-surgeons-get-paid-more-than-physicians/

 

[Corn]

Comprehension fail. Guess the whole "for profit" comment went over your head.

If you had actually bothered to read my post, physician owned "hospitals" are for-profit, and those physicians have plenty of opportunity to refer only "good" (as in paying) patients to their place, while sending the less insured (or non-insured) to regular hospitals. And since they own it, they have $$ incentive to order extra tests, do extra billable procedures.

No, you may be OK with practices like this, but I am not.

No non-profit corporate hospitals are closing, only cash-cow places that are done to maximize a physicians $$. If and when it becomes non-profitable to them, they will simply close, and go back to seeing all patients in a regular hospital.

What is it that people say? Privatize profits, and socialize losses? So I guess you are good with that. I hope you supported the wall street bailout with a view like that.

Comprehension fail is purely on you. This does not ban "for profit" ownership.

 

[Gulzakar]

I can't get the link to work, but my own thoughts...
I don't think they've set the penalties, but it's looking to be not that bad. It would be cheaper for people to pay the penalty rather than the actual insurance...which leaves only the sick to purchase the health care (obviously good for them). Without the younger, healthy stock feeding into the system (and not actually using the insurance), there is potential for considerable loss with the Health Plans. If the Health Plans are losing money, so are the contracted doctors and hospitals. I totally understand the social importance, so I'm hoping this all pans out.