Jump to content
SilentMind

SilentMind

Registered User
  • Joined:
  • Last Visited:
  • 253

    Content

  • 0

    Articles

  • 2,966

    Visitors

  • 0

    Followers

  • 0

    Points

SilentMind's Latest Activity

  1. SilentMind

    60 hospitals cancelled due to health care reform

    Your information is incomplete. You can say the other hospitals donate 3x more to the community. But that means absolutely nothing unless you can relate that to the resources each hospital has available.
  2. SilentMind

    60 hospitals cancelled due to health care reform

    So...honestly, your claim is faulty at best. That's like comparing the charitable donations of bill gates and an average working stiff.
  3. SilentMind

    60 hospitals cancelled due to health care reform

    Did you also do a comparison to see what the net incomes were for all three hospitals?
  4. SilentMind

    60 hospitals cancelled due to health care reform

    Less community oriented then other hospitals is still infinitely more community oriented then no hospital at all.
  5. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/64034 "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. The get the department's permission, a doctor-owned hospital must be in a county where population growth is 150 percent of the population growth of the state in the last five years; impatient admissions must be equal to all hospitals located in the county; the bed occupancy rate must not be greater than the state average, and it must be located in a state where hospital bed capacity is less than the national average. These rules are under Title VI, Section 6001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The provision is titled "Physician Ownership and Other Transparency - Limitations on Medicare Exceptions to the Prohibition on Certain Physician Referral for Hospitals." More than 60 doctor-owned hospitals across the country that were in the development stage will be canceled, said Molly Sandvig, executive director of Physician Hospitals of America (PHA). "That's a lot of access to communities that will be denied," Sandvig told CNSNews.com. "The existing hospitals are greatly affected. They can't grow. They can't add beds. They can't add rooms. Basically, it stifles their ability to change and meet market needs. This is really an unfortunate thing as well, because we are talking about some of the best hospitals in the country." The organization says physician-owned hospitals have higher patient satisfaction, greater control over medical decisions for patients and doctor, better quality care and lower costs. Further, physician-owned hospitals have an average 4-1 patient-to-nurse ratio, compared to the national average of 8-1 for general hospitals. Further, these 260 doctor-owned hospitals in 38 states provide 55,000 jobs, $2.4 billion in payroll and pay $509 million in federal taxes, according to the PHA. In one ironic aspect, President Barack Obama's two largest legislative achievements clashed. The Hammond Community Hospital in North Hammond, Ind., got $7 million in bond money from the federal stimulus act in 2009. It will likely be scrapped because of the new rules on physician-owned hospitals, according to the Post-Tribune newspaper in Merrillville, Ind. These hospitals have long been a target of the American Hospital Association, which represents corporate-owned hospitals as well as non-profit hospitals. An AHA study from 2008 says that physician-owned hospitals "lessen patient access to emergency and trauma case;" "damage the financial health of full-service hospitals and lead to cutbacks in service;" "are not more efficient than full service community hospitals;" "use physician-owners to steer patients;" "cherry pick the most profitable patients;" and "provide limited or no emergency services." Meanwhile, one AHA fact sheet asserts that physician-owned orthopedic and surgical hospitals costs are 20 percent to 30 percent higher than average hospitals. Further, these hospitals just lead to higher profits for doctors, the AHA asserts. "We don't cherry pick patients, period, end of story. We take patients based on their need for care, not on their ability to pay," Sandvig said. "It [the health care reform] puts control outside the hand of physicians and patients and into bureaucrats' hands really. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is one of many organizations suing to have the law declared unconstitutional on the grounds that the federal government cannot compel someone to buy a product. While the provision on physician hospitals is not part of the lawsuit, it will affect it, Dr. said Jane Orient, AAPS executive director. "If the law is declared unconstitutional, then the prohibition is part of the bill," Orient told CNSNews.com. "There are vested interests in getting rid of physician-owned hospitals because they do a better job and are more affordable." The provision in the legislation and efforts opposing these hospitals can be simply explained from Sandvig's view. "It's anti-competitive. I think it's pretty clear," Sandvig said. "We're a model that makes sense that's affecting innovation. We're trying to do something better than it has been done. Anytime you do that, there's going to be a clash between the existing and the new. Unfortunately, it's a real David and Goliath battle."" You asked for it, you got it.
  6. SilentMind

    All I want for Christmas is a single payer plan!

    Easy? Keeping costs down? Reign in malpractice lawsuits. Premiums/coverage/preexisting conditions/etc....Take the government out of it once and for all. Turn insurance over to the free market, not to the government or any chosen corporations. The reason health care is screwed is because politicians make sweetheart deals with insurance companies. A couple CEO's get together and buy off a politician, in return...they get a gold stamp to monopolize business in that state. Win/win, unless you happen to be the consumer and/or the taxpayer. This health care reform bit is nothing more then another sweet deal for insurance companies. Originally, the legislation was designed to force insurance companies to do away with preexisting condition denials. And in return, to make up for all that loss of income, they would make it so everyone including low cost young people would be forced to purchase insurance to pick up the tab. Now, the preexisting restraints have been watered down to nothing and insurance companies end up with a massive influx of people that are legally required to purchase their product.
  7. SilentMind

    Health Care Reform

    Pathetic really, the sentiments of this country. Noone actually cares what the effects on this country are. Noone thinks that far ahead. Health care reform is a lot like Obama, really. Noone actually supports him. They're just tired of the opposite. Liberals can't be arsed to think about why things are broken. They just want the easy solution that presents itself. The health care reform doesn't bother to address the problems with health care accessibility and costs. It just offers an alternative with all the same problems.
  8. SilentMind

    Broward College RN Program May 2010

    Not entirely sure. I'm 95% it won't matter. I'm ashamed to admit...i've taken anatomy more then my fair share. No teacher has ever taught from the book. At most, they'll just add a reference to a chart or figure in the book. As long as it covers the same material, you should be fine. If you're concerned about the discrepancies, i have a book you're welcome to use for the semester.
  9. It's the same thing governments did by restricting access to people with H1N1 symptoms. It's just a precautionary measure in the interest of public safety. It doesn't guarantee anything, but it offers some protection, and there's nothing more you can do.
  10. Well, considering there are only two groups of people. The known positive, and everyone. I think everyone would be a little extreme...
  11. SilentMind

    A tear shed for nationalized medicine.

    That's kind of the point. There are a dozen threads about individual cases used to prove how horrible the health care system is. I was trying to show how silly that is. This article is tragic, but it's an isolated incident with a sample of one. It's as poor a reflection on the NHS system as the "health care horror story" threads are of American health care. P.S. I've never in my life feared that healthcare might bankrupt me. It wouldn't even make the top 5 list of things out of my control that are most likely to screw over my finances.
  12. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1235921/Midwives-meltdown-A-NHS-worker-reveals-understaffed-maternity-wards-sinking-chaos.html Despite the hype, the end product is always the same. In the end, every government program runs into the brick wall of the budget crisis.
  13. I've never much cared for your opinion. But this is the truth. To the OP, don't feel too guilty about not having the slightest clue what this health care reform is actually about. The majority of the people voting on it don't know anything more about it then you do.
  14. SilentMind

    Health Care Reform

    I'm pretty sure the public option was already shot down in the senate. Ideally, a public option competing with private companies to keep costs down would be a great benefit to the consumer. That isn't the case. The public option isn't just an insurance company that takes profit out of the equation to compete with for profit insurance companies. But through government subsidies, it actually runs on negative profit (which isn't an issue when the taxpayers are fronting) which makes it absolutely impossible for private companies to compete. Eventually, there is only the public option which is as much "socialized medicine" as anything. They don't need to control the hospitals or the clinics, when they're the only one paying, they're the only ones calling the shots. They get to decide exactly what they feel like paying for each service, which services they'd like to cover and should be offered, and ultimately...even with subsidies, financial strains will force even a non profit to trim the fat. Which can only come from the bottom line. But, I'm not trumping competition in the least. It's actually the basis of the free market capitalist system. Without competition, corporations are free to financially rape the people at will. But with so much money to be made in this industry, why is it that other corporations haven't stepped in and kept these in check? The promise of huge bonuses should be attracting the best and the brightest of the buisness world. Except that you know, it doesn't. Because there are already laws on the books preventing competition. Only certain companies are allowed to sell insurance in each state. And they're not able to go next door and set up shop at will. The state governments are already bought off by the insurance companies to ensure that they stay nice and comfortable. The current shortcomings in the private insurance sector are not, as many would like to claim, the failures of capitalism. In fact, it's just the opposite. Legal protections for certain companies to protect them against free market forces = bad news for the consumers. This needs to change. In pushing for a public option, it's like drinking to kill a hangover. Government is the reason competition is stifled, and you expect them to come in and provide that competition either 1) Fairly 2) Efficiently or 3) Ethically. As a student working part time, I can afford to see a doctor when I need to. I've been paying for health insurance for years, and I took my first checkup this year since 06. My current finances are starting to slip, and honestly...I'm not sure that continuing to shell out $100 a month is really in my best interests for a service I don't need. Whats matters to me, is not letting the federal government come in and tell me where I need to be spending my money. Furthermore, assuming that coverage alone is equal to being able to see a doctor is a common misconception. We already have a public option designed for the aging population, and a great deal of those on medicare have trouble finding doctors that are willing to jump through all the government hoops to earn half of what they make on other patients. Here's some additional reading on the subject. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html The fact is, the insurance industry is dumping more money into killing healthcare reform than anyone- and that should say something. The only reason any corporation spends money is because they think it'll make them money in the long run- and thus far the private health insurance industry has been making their money by screwing over their customers. Protecting their profits should not be the concern of OUR representatives. The concern of OUR representatives, and I say this very tenatively, is to be the peoples voice in government. Mostly, they do whatever they can get away with in their own interests and throwing money to pet projects for their buddies corporations. But in theory, they're supposed to be our voice. And the last poll I saw was 51%-41% against the bill. People don't want to have to shoulder enormous costs to enact a change that's really pretty hit or miss at this point. People that support this bill seem blindly idealistic, supporting change in general, rather then anything specific about this particular plan. The costs are astronomical, even by democratic projections, and there's absolutely nothing to hint that it will be any more successful then our current system. This is one of the many problems that just cant be fixed by throwing money at it.
  15. SilentMind

    Health Care Reform

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091201/D9CAD2M00.html Actually, the CBO's findings were that it would reduce premiums for those working at large companies by 0-3% employees of small companies will see between a 1% increase and a 2% decrease...essentially unchanged for both groups. Non group/individuals can expect a 10% to 13% increase. Which they're going to call a reduction because of government subsidies.
×