Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    10:46 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Hospitals Should Not Be Run For Profit Back to Topics
SemiSteve

Champion Author
Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2012 10:06:27 AM

They should be run for the purpose of taking care of people.

The two goals are in stark contrast to one another. Profits are not synonymous with patient care.

Likewise, students should not go into Medical School to get rich.

They should do it because they want to help people.

Military hospitals / Doctors do a very good job while focusing on results instead of making tons of money. Great example.

The PPACA (ObamaCare) is here to stay now. While it helps the cruel dichotomy between a health care industry focused more on profits than results it is only the first step towards where we really need to be:

Government run universal health care.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,124
Points:3,446,720
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 22, 2012 9:26:43 AM

Oh, and SemiSteve - you still haven't acknowledged the fact that many insurances, and most hospitals ARE, in fact, NON-PROFIT CORPORATIONS. So then how do you justify that with your "Profit is evil-Profit is evil" schtick?
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,124
Points:3,446,720
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 22, 2012 12:20:36 AM

Ydraig - I would tell you that most folks' visit to hospitals aren't for life threatening care. Certainly some, but not the majority of visits. If care isn't provided well, word spreads rapidly. We had that situation at a hospital out here. Harbor Hospital (I think in Harbor City) ended up closing. Twice, in fact, due to problems and non-profitability.

Now, why would hospitals not want to treat you? No reason. But remember, people are getting sick all the time. Most hospitals are full or nearly so most of the time. Their incentive to get you well is 1) To free up a bed for someone else who is sick. 2) Because if they don't help you out, word gets around. 3) If you die, they don't make as much off of you as if you live and come back another day. So, no, Steve. I disagree.

And again, as to your assertion that Big Pharma doesn't cure anything, well, that's hogwash. We had all kinds of drugs come out. No problems. And if a Pharma co can cure a disease, they will, absolutely. If they can offer a cure, they can charge what they please for it, as well as gain a name for their company. Your assertions otherwise are bogus, my friend.
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 21, 2012 10:09:21 PM

If you go to a restaurant and get a lousy meal, you will not go back.

If you go to a hospital and get lousy care, you may not be able to go back, or anywhere else.

You make a lousy straw man argument in that case.

Let's at least TRY to keep it real here.

Medical care is such a necessary thing that the idea of making a profit seems counter to making people well. Do you have kids? Parents? Do you care about them?

Or does the so called capitalist dream take precedence over that?

Well? Pick one!
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,368
Points:150,495
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 21, 2012 3:57:11 PM

Some on here have never had surgery, most times you don't pick the hospital its a factor of which hospital your doctor is affiliated with.

Of course you are always free to choose your doctor if you want to exclude your insurance company, dont belong to a HMO, or dont care about the usual and customary fee's.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,368
Points:150,495
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 21, 2012 3:56:50 PM

Some on here have never had surgery, most times you don't pick the hospital its a factor of which hospital your doctor is affiliated with.

Of course you are always free to choose your doctor if you want to exclude your insurance company, dont belong to a HMO, or dont care about the usual and customary fee's.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 21, 2012 3:47:48 PM

"What incentive do hospitals have to make you well. [?] When or if you get well, the revenue flow stops."

It's the same thing with drug companies. They have no incentive to work on coming up with a cure for anything. As soon as the cure is applied the revenue flow stops. That's why they have come up with a remedy for everything and a cure for nothing.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,770
Points:4,585,280
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 11:23:24 AM

WES03, "What incentive do hospitals have to make you well. When or if you get well, the revenue flow stops."

If you go out to eat, and the food isn't good, you go somewhere else, right?

Don't they have more than one hospital in the area where you live in Maryland?

See, I think you answered your own question. If government ran the hospitals, there would be no competition, so it wouldn't matter which hospital you went to.
If you had a choice, wouldn't you go to the better hospital than a not so good one (that is called competition)?

You do that everyday when you go shopping, don't you?
Profile Pic
cbuck80
Champion Author Massachusetts

Posts:2,690
Points:848,230
Joined:Jan 2012
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 11:17:05 AM

When you recieve good care at a hospital, you then go backthere because you were treated well. If you were treated well you talk to other people about medical careyou say I recieved good care a hospital X. Than they go and so on and so on. Many business work this way.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,588
Points:1,857,935
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 10:55:54 AM

WES03, >>What incentive do hospitals have to make you well. When or if you get well, the revenue flow stops.<<
***
Very thought provoking!

The same could be said for most of the Health 'Care' industry with the exception of those that look to prevent and , if inflicted cure, illnesses rather than just 'treat' illnesses.
Profile Pic
WES03
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:7,015
Points:1,774,450
Joined:Feb 2009
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 8:10:37 AM

What incentive do hospitals have to make you well. When or if you get well, the revenue flow stops.
Profile Pic
Wanda127
Champion Author Florida

Posts:4,975
Points:1,513,345
Joined:May 2010
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 7:56:43 PM

I believe all public hospitals should be run as not for profit. They do not serve the public as well when they worry about their profits.

Only private small hospitals that serve the elite with their elective surgeries should be able to make profit.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,164
Points:1,522,470
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 7:36:16 PM

MJ - "I know how you feel. But instead of letting them wallow in their state of misbelief, I try to, as gentile as I can, tell them the truth."

You and lots of others have tried being gentle and nice. Unfortunately in the end nothing works as well as the harsh bitter results of real world experience.

Maybe you could be not quite so gentle and whup them up alongside the haead. That will be less painful than reality.
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 7:25:41 PM

It isn't the hospitals. It's everything else.

The high cost of dealing with insurance companies.
The risk of being sued for not running enough tests.
The cost of treating people who have no money or insurance.
The exhorbitant profits built in to the pharmaceutical companies.
The exhorbitant costs of so called "medical specialty" equipment.
The high costs of useless government intervention.
The high cost of mistakes caused by inadequate government intervention.
The high costs of education for medical fields.

It all adds up to a HUGE profit making industry, and the hospitals are at the end of that long line. They do not generate the costs. In fact, many are going under because they are trying to absorb all these costs.

I have worked in the medical field twice in my career; Once providing service to medical equipment, and once building pacemakers. So I have a pretty good idea what goes on behind the scenes.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,588
Points:1,857,935
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 6:25:24 PM

flyboyUT, >>MJ what I was trying to say is that even if you tell them --- they wont believe you. Unless the message comes from approved progs like Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews or Obama or Pelosi - they wont believe it.<<
***
I know how you feel. But instead of letting them wallow in their state of misbelief, I try to, as gentile as I can, tell them the truth.

I look at it as trying to tell a teenager who doesn't believe you when you've told them time and again that the man in the red suit on Christmas morning is really mommy and daddy. And THEY (mom and dad) are the ones paying for all the toys and that there is a limit as to what can reasonably be spent without endangering the financial well being of the family.

Sooner or later, the intelligent ones realize the truth, correct their ways and become impassioned proponents of freedom and insist the government limit its powers to the confines of the Constitution. The others? Well they continue to believe in inanimate objects such as governments, have feelings and as a consequence should do the things we are supposed to do. They'll also continue to believe a piece of paper written over 225 years ago is a living thing that is subject to evolution rather than the law by which we all are to abide by.

Fly, its tough work (as I'm not the most skillful typist) but somebody has to do it. ;-)

[Edited by: MahopacJack at 12/3/2012 6:31:29 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 5:11:55 PM

AC-302: "Steve - where did you read this "all in a union" drivel? Is this in the latest MotherJones? Is this why you're on this schtick lately? By the fact that you started a topic on it and are propagating it here as well, it leads me to believe that you either read this in a mag, or heard it as a talking point on MSLSD or Air America. Which is it?"

--Sorry to disappoint, AC-302, but the union revelation is original. It came to me while replying to you. I thought it worthy of discussion in it's own right so I began the topic. Why? Have you stopped reading Mother Jones?

MahopacJack: "SemiSteve,

Yet another example of your putting YOUR POLITICAL AGENDA before finding what are really the facts.

As of 2010, there were 5,754 hospitals in the US. Of those, only 1,013 were for profit hospitals."

Ouuu. Looks like you really GOT me there. If that was your point then good job. Of course, I have found that one of the best ways to learn is to make an objectionable statement and then just sit back and let folks like you do the info digging and fact-finding FOR me. Thanks for the break-down on profit vs non-profit hospitals.

A major problem is that for-profits generally want to offer only the most profitable services and stay away from the needs of the community for all services, which included ER and birth. Thus these services must be picked up by the non-profits which force them to charge more than they would have to otherwise.

<<< Isn't Kaiser even a non-profit? So since they are already non-profit, what exactly is your beef?>>>

EZExit: "I'll tell you what his beef is, it is that hospitals are not a branch of the federal government. Remember, the end game is to socialize everything, one piece at a time."

--I'll speak for myself thanks. And no, we only need to socialize the things that are basic needs for all and absurd to run for profit. When medical attention is needed there is no time to shop around for price. And even if one tried to they would find it impossible. "Hello? What do you charge for a multiple bypass surgery? ... Is that complete with everything that would be needed, all the charges included? ... What's that? You're running a special on stroke treatment? Sorry. I don't need that right now." Yeah, right.

"look at the National Health in Great Britain. ... it's a death panel in disguise. ... this is what ObamaCare will turn into."

--Well, at least you are not claiming the ACA already includes death panels (which is still a very common misperception.) But you're condemning it for such anyway even though it's not actually in there. I wonder what people would criticize if they simply stuck to what is really there and didn't go running scared of goblins in the closet?
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,164
Points:1,522,470
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 10:38:32 AM

MJ what I was trying to say is that even if you tell them --- they wont believe you. Unless the message comes from approved progs like Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews or Obama or Pelosi - they wont believe it.
Profile Pic
cbuck80
Champion Author Massachusetts

Posts:2,690
Points:848,230
Joined:Jan 2012
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 9:48:13 AM

The Gov't can't run anything when it's broke.
All over the country the worse run hospitals and medical centers are the ones run by the federal gov't.
Hospitals are businesses too and they have to be run that way.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,588
Points:1,857,935
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 9:23:36 AM

flyboyUT, >>MJack - do you really expect the progs\libs here or anywhere to believe it or to even think about it?<<
***
No but if they are not told what the Document contains (along with a dictionary to find out what some of the words mean) they'll believe anything anyone tells them as long as it suits their needs or agendas. The source of all our present day, and for the foreseeable future, financial woes are the workings of the Progressive movement which started in the early 1900's and other Supreme Court reversals of the COINAGE of money in the Grant Administration.

[Edited by: MahopacJack at 12/3/2012 9:26:32 AM EST]
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,368
Points:150,495
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 12:42:14 AM

FlyboyUt

I do know that there are the hospitals that are run by religious organizations that are not- for profit.

I personally use them when ever possible because they are run better, the service and attention to care is done from an intrinsic value instead of profit mill.

However not all doctors use them, there for at times they cant be used, nothing like a for profit hospital trying to charge your insurance company and you 5 times for the same procedure.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,124
Points:3,446,720
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 12:28:28 AM

nstrdnvstr said: "Because Medicare and Medicaid are being run so well financially???"

--Don't forget the VA - the other dirty little secret upon which our future National Health Service will be patterned after. Here, now. My Dad (a vet) gets some health services at his local VA. One administrator told him not so long ago that he made too much money as a retiree, and that he couldn't use VA services anymore. My Dad told this guy to "shove it", and that if the VA wouldn't honor the commitment they made to him when they involuntarily plucked him out of civilian life at 23 years old, he would not only sue, but he'd also get the local TV media involved in reporting it.

There's another guy at my parent's complex who is a retired Army NCO with like 30 years in. The VA refuses to treat him, too, since he makes too much as a retiree.

SemiSteve - look at the National Health in Great Britain. They have that so-called "NICE" board -who aren't so nice. Sorry, friend, but it's a death panel in disguise. So a person has cataracts at, say, about 80. They only do one eye, not both. Why? Because you only NEED one eye. Ditto glaucoma intra-ocular meds. You only get enough for one eye, because you only need one eye to function. And here you have a documented report of euthanasia of CHILDREN. CHILDREN FOR GOD'S SAKE!! So this is what you support? And again, this is what ObamaCare will turn into. It must necessarily be so. Why? Because you cannot fund the system with infinite money. Therefore, logically speaking, they ultimately MUST ration care. And it will happen when it comes to it.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,164
Points:1,522,470
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 11:15:32 PM

Streetrider you do know that there are "nonprofit" hospitals now dont you? You know ones run by churches and other charities. I think there are also some run by organizations that are nonprofit too.

Its only been very recently where the Federal Govt has stuck its nose into what used to be considered private business.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,368
Points:150,495
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 10:04:22 PM

I suspose that if the government totally withdrew the teet,republicans would scream just as much as democrats.

Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,164
Points:1,522,470
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 7:37:27 PM

MJack - do you really expect the progs\libs here or anywhere to believe it or to even think about it?
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,588
Points:1,857,935
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 6:38:01 PM

MiddletownMarty, >>Would that apply to wars, too? <<
***
No. It is one of the few things this government does that it is permitted to do under the US Constitution. While I admit there have been ridiculous expenditures in this area (defense). It is not, however, the source of our financial woes.

The source of our woes is the unbridled demands of a ever increasing percentage of the citizenry who believes the government is to provide them with cradle to grave ever increasing benefits provided by an ever decreasing group of citizens who are footing the bills for this foolishness.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,915
Points:322,425
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 6:10:05 PM

"No pay no service, the government is broke."

Would that apply to wars, too?
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,164
Points:1,522,470
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 4:46:50 PM

Streetrider - there is much merit in your ideas. It is not the job of the federal government to interfere in health care. If they would just butt out maybe the mess we now have would settle down to a rational normal.

[Edited by: flyboyUT at 12/2/2012 4:48:17 PM EST]
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,368
Points:150,495
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 3:49:51 PM

That's right lets do a 100% run for profit hospitals. Since private corporationss can no longer support employee programs, the government should end spending anything on health care for anyone.

No pay no service, the government is broke.

Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,588
Points:1,857,935
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 3:18:12 PM

flyboyUT,

Excellent example of what happens when the Government runs things. Some folks refuse to realize what a danger any government will eventually endanger the very citizens it has sworn to protect.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,164
Points:1,522,470
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 1:34:09 PM

Oh yes lets have not for profit govt run hospitals. They are so gooder we just cant understand it at all.
.
>>>Sick children are being discharged from NHS hospitals to die at home or in hospices on controversial ‘death pathways’. Until now, end of life regime the Liverpool Care Pathway was thought to have involved only elderly and terminally-ill adults. But the Mail can reveal the practice of withdrawing food and fluid by tube is being used on young patients as well as severely disabled newborn babies.

And here are some of the horrifying details. Read at your own risk.

One doctor has admitted starving and dehydrating ten babies to death in the neonatal unit of one hospital alone. Writing in a leading medical journal, the physician revealed the process can take an average of ten days during which a baby becomes ‘smaller and shrunken’. The LCP – on which 130,000 elderly and terminally-ill adult patients die each year – is now the subject of an independent inquiry ordered by ministers. …Earlier this month, an un-named doctor wrote of the agony of watching the protracted deaths of babies. …‘I know, as they cannot, the unique horror of witnessing a child become smaller and shrunken, as the only route out of a life that has become



excruciating to the patient or to the parents who love their baby.’ …Bernadette Lloyd, a hospice paediatric nurse, has written to the Cabinet Office and the Department of Health to criticise the use of death pathways for children. She said: ‘The parents feel coerced, at a very traumatic time, into agreeing that this is correct for their child whom they are told by doctors has only has a few days to live. It is very difficult to predict death. I have seen a “reasonable” number of children recover after being taken off the pathway. …‘I have also seen children die in terrible thirst because fluids are withdrawn from them until they die. ‘I witnessed a 14 year-old boy with cancer die with his tongue stuck to the roof of his mouth when doctors refused to give him liquids by tube. His death was agonising for him, and for us nurses to watch. This is euthanasia by the backdoor.’

My first reaction is to hope that this story is wildly wrong, filled with exaggerations and lies.

My second reaction (and this is why I got so agitated) is to imagine what it must be like for the parents. They get talked into letting their kids die, which must be agonizing, and then (assuming they stick around) they have to watch them slowly starve to death or die of thirst. Wouldn’t it be better to just give your kid a fatal injection? Setting aside the moral issue of deciding to let a kid die because he’s disabled or something like that, doesn’t simple decency mean that death should be painless rather than agonizing?<<<

There are many more links at the bottom of the article. I think I will stay with a well run 'for profit' place.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,020
Points:2,313,260
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 1:22:30 PM

<<< Isn't Kaiser even a non-profit? So since they are already non-profit, what exactly is your beef?>>>

I'll tell you what his beef is, it is that hospitals are not a branch of the federal government. Remember, the end game is to socialize everything, one piece at a time.

[Edited by: EZExit at 12/2/2012 1:23:32 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,164
Points:1,522,470
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 1:16:30 PM

Dont know what old people your talking about - none in my relations did.







They lived frugally, saved their money and if they needed help the family got together and helped.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,915
Points:322,425
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 1:09:25 PM

"Sorry, we tried that simple approach long ago. Back before we had social security and medicare old people starved and died for lack of savings. Nobody wants to go back there."

Correction: -Almost- nobody wants to go back there.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,588
Points:1,857,935
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 1:07:15 PM

SemiSteve,

Yet another example of your putting YOUR POLITICAL AGENDA before finding what are really the facts.

As of 2010, there were 5,754 hospitals in the US. Of those, only 1,013 were for profit hospitals.

Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,770
Points:4,585,280
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 12:08:29 PM

SemiSteve, " But it would never have been necessary if we had let the government run a health care system for the common man as FDR envisioned."

Because Medicare and Medicaid are being run so well financially???

Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,124
Points:3,446,720
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 11:13:50 AM

Steve - where did you read this "all in a union" drivel? Is this in the latest MotherJones? Is this why you're on this schtick lately? By the fact that you started a topic on it and are propagating it here as well, it leads me to believe that you either read this in a mag, or heard it as a talking point on MSLSD or Air America. Which is it?

I appreciate the fact that you realize that ObamaCare is messed up. The way it was done was totally wrong. Now once again you bring up outside extremes. But to your side points, do I agree with patient dumping? Heck no. Of course that's wrong. And hospitals have been caught dumping patients here in LaLa land onto skid row, still in their hospital gowns. They got caught and fined, but it still didn't stop them and didn't help the patient. But does that mean a socialistic system is the ONLY way to solve the problem? Certainly not. Again, the best way to start would have been to get the nation-wide insurance exchange going, and have competition (with some regulation) across state lines.

And speaking of "not for profit", aren't MOST hospitals owned by "not for profit" corporations? It seems to me that most are. Isn't Kaiser even a non-profit? So since they are already non-profit, what exactly is your beef?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 5:26:20 PM

flyboyUT: "... the best system we have found to provide the most to the most people is enlightened greed - commonly called capitalism. "

--Ahh, how easy! One solution for all problems. Who would have thought that such a simplistic approach could cover so many complicated challenges?

Sorry, we tried that simple approach long ago. Back before we had social security and medicare old people starved and died for lack of savings. Nobody wants to go back there.

We need a mix of capitalism and socialism. Neither is the end-all be-all simple one solution for all situations.

AC-302, who says you have to live your life "ONLY for the benefit of others?" Stop exaggerating and taking things to extremes. The ACA is a mess, agreed. But it would never have been necessary if we had let the government run a health care system for the common man as FDR envisioned. The ritzy could still have had luxury care if they want to pay for it. But to let healing become focused more on making profits than keeping the nation healthy has made health care inaccessible to many. So once again government sees the need to step in a institute a socialized system to pick up the slack that capitalism does not provide. Yes the ACA is a mess; but it smells a lot rosier than patient dumping and shutting the poor out of care. Even middle class people sometimes ended up in predicaments which both broke them and allowed their family members to die because the care was so high priced they could not afford it. That's not forming a more perfect union, insuring domestic tranquility, establishing justice, or promoting the general welfare. That was an imperfect union, lacking in domestic tranquility, injustly promoting selective welfare.

You conservatives need to get this through your heads. We are ALL in a union. It is about time you recognized that we ALL have to contribute to it. You can't just throw up your hands and ask to be left out of it. It doesn't work that way. It's all for one and one for all. It would work a whole lot better if a lot of people would get beyond their selfishness and be a team player.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,368
Points:150,495
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 5:00:44 PM

4
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,368
Points:150,495
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 1:17:20 PM

Th real reason why alot of jobs are not in this country, health care cost to much here.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,124
Points:3,446,720
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Nov 27, 2012 9:58:50 PM

SemiSteve - Flyboy is right. When you have everyone in the world as altruistic, then OK. But not everyone is altruistic. And as to altruism as a theosophy, I disagree. Why should I live my life ONLY for the benefit of others? Isn't my own happiness my responsibility? Anyway, the reason the commie states fell is that, in effect, the people and their corrupt leaders were greedy. I think for that reason alone, capitalism is far more "natural" to people than is communism.
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,401
Points:1,239,020
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Nov 27, 2012 8:15:22 PM

Hospitals Should Not Be Run For Profit

I agree with you and will go even farther. Farms and food production should not be run for profit either. Neither should grocery stores. Everyone in food production should be interested in the feeding of people not profit. After all people who can’t get food will die before they need healthcare.

Apartment complexes should not be for profit because everyone has the need of a climate controlled safe living place. A safe comfortable living place will reduce the need for healthcare.

Energy companies should be non-profit as well because no one should have to turn down the thermostat or turn off the A/C because they can’t afford to run them. During the heat wave we had in the Midwest this summer dozens of elderly people died because they would not run the A/C, some because of the cost. Just think what would happen to the economy if all the profits the energy companies made where shifted to price reduction.

High school teachers should not be making $80,000 a year, they should be teaching for the love of educating the young. I know that number is correct because our local paper loves to publish the pay of all government employees. While we are at it all collage education should be non-profit too.

You have a great idea but you didn’t take it far enough.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,164
Points:1,522,470
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 26, 2012 4:08:37 PM

Steve said - "If people who think like me had their way businesses would prosper in a market which values the positive contribution of each to society. Functions which are basic to life, the need for which is shared by all, would be provided by the contributions of all to a single effective provider."

You know what Steve - I agree with you. If we lived in a perfect world with altruistic perfect people only that sounds great. Unfortunately we dont. So far the best system we have found to provide the most to the most people is enlightened greed - commonly called capitalism. It has been proven that it works and works fairly well. We have also seen every attempt from the time of Christ - 2000+ years back for those that dont think he is real - up to the present time at a utopian society as you propose fails after a short time. Myself I will choose what has been proven to work.

Now is capitalism perfect - no its not. But I like it better than the alternatives.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,915
Points:322,425
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Nov 26, 2012 3:57:29 PM

"If people that (sic) think like steve (sic) had there (sic) way, no buisness (sic) would make a profit. Of course if that was the way it worked there would be no buisness (sic)."

Hospitals would be great places if not for all those sic people in them.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Nov 26, 2012 3:48:16 PM

noseatbelt: "If people that (sic) think like steve (sic) had there (sic) way, no buisness (sic) would make a profit. Of course if that was the way it worked there would be no buisness (sic)."

--Wrong. If people who think like me had their way businesses would prosper in a market which values the positive contribution of each to society. Functions which are basic to life, the need for which is shared by all, would be provided by the contributions of all to a single effective provider.

***

ropegun11

"Hi SemiSteve,
I worked in the medical field for 5 years (as an aeromed tech in the AF, NREMT, and ER tech at a level 1 trauma center), have several friends who are MDs, RNs, and paramedics, and I agree that, if a woman does not have a condition which would make having a C-section necessary or condition(s) that would be potential indicators of complications during labor and delivery, then utilising a midwife should at least be an option on the table. "

--Hello ropegun11,

Thank you. Part of the problem is that young girls are taught at an early age to defer all such decisions to a surgeon (the OB-GYN). They are trained to go to the OB-GYN's office for any 'female matters.' But OB-GYNs do not offer much, if ANY, information about such options; as they see Midwifery as competition. Worse, if a woman asks an OB-GYN about Midwifery she is likely to get disparaging comments such as 'non-medicine', 'quackery', 'danger', 'non-professional,' 'witches', etc. But the real crux of the information issue is that women don't even know about Midwifery and would never even find out unless they go against what they are normally told and seek out the information for themselves.

Even among women who are at least aware they might have other options besides a medicalized interventionist birth a common saying is "I want to be in a hospital just in case something goes wrong." What they don't realize is that any birth at a birth center or a home which is within twenty minutes of a hospital is just as safe; because it takes twenty minutes to prep the labor-and-delivery ER. So even the ones already in a hospital still have to wait the amount of time it would take to drive there - for their emergency procedure.

Of course this is completely averted in other nations by simply setting up a natural birth center at or in a hospital where women can go and have their natural birth with the security of knowing that emergency procedures are at hand if needed. But largely due to the out-sized influence of surgeons, ACOG and the AMA on American birth methods such conveniently and smartly located birth centers are rarely found.

Too bad for the rest of us, whether we are having babies or not, we all pay extra so the vocal few OB-GYNs can protect their out-sized profits. We should demand that most low-risk birth mothers be given the option of using a low-cost Midwife for a natural birth instead of being automatically herded into the highest-price setting without being told why. The facts that it would save us a bundle of money and yield a better outcome should be reasons enough to do it.

Remember. Having a surgeon do birth is like having a scientist do tune-ups. You'll not necessarily get a better outcome but you will certainly pay much more for it than you needed to. Insurance just spreads those high cost losses around to all of us.
Profile Pic
noseatbelt
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:8,133
Points:212,590
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Nov 22, 2012 6:08:51 PM

If people that think like steve had there way, no buisness would make a profit. Of course if that was the way it worked there would be no buisness.
Profile Pic
ropegun11
All-Star Author Illinois

Posts:775
Points:563,485
Joined:Sep 2011
Message Posted: Nov 22, 2012 6:02:17 PM

Hi SemiSteve,
I worked in the medical field for 5 years (as an aeromed tech in the AF, NREMT, and ER tech at a level 1 trauma center), have several friends who are MDs, RNs, and paramedics, and I agree that, if a woman does not have a condition which would make having a C-section necessary or condition(s) that would be potential indicators of complications during labor and delivery, then utilising a midwife should at least be an option on the table.
Profile Pic
1OILMAN
Champion Author Alabama

Posts:2,269
Points:221,160
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Nov 22, 2012 2:35:34 PM

IF those other countries are so good, why do so many come here for "the best" medical care?
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,588
Points:1,857,935
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Nov 22, 2012 10:20:41 AM

streetrider, >>Well the for profit isn't working that great except for insurance companies and the profiteers. We are ranked on as #1 in expendatures and #37 in actual effectiveness.
most all of those evil socialist countries like france, germany etc are much more effective in providing care.<<
***
Spot on! And guess who benefits the most from the "Affordable" Care Act? Its supposed to make health care costs lower but only puts another entity (the Federal Government) into the mix. As with all the previous 'pie in the sky' programs, this too is destined to drain more revenue from the people who are supposed to benefit from it.

Amazing how these expensive 'do good programs' pass through Congress and then go on to set new records of failed financial management. And we, in turn, continue to elect the math challenged legislators.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,368
Points:150,495
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Nov 22, 2012 12:10:22 AM

"Hospitals should not be run for profit"
Well the for profit isn't working that great except for insurance companies and the profiteers. We are ranked on as #1 in expendatures and #37 in actual effectiveness.
most all of those evil socialist countries like france, germany etc are much more effective in providing care.
But hey dont believe my post look up WHO's ranking yourself.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,124
Points:3,446,720
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Nov 21, 2012 5:17:22 PM

SemiSteve said: "Yeah, well if you've got a boat with a thousand leaks it is not going to float until they are ALL plugged."

--Sorry, Steve. You have a problem with coherence and hyperbole. Care to restate in a coherent fashion?

SemiSteve also said: "That may be true; so why don't we compare the outcome low-risk American births performed under the care of an OB-GYN in a hospital to those of a Midwife in a Birth Center or at a home birth? Hands-down the Midwives have far superior outcomes than the medicalized births. Midwife-attended births have fewer poor outcomes than Doctor-managed births for the same initial types of births (level of anticipated risk or so-called risk-factor).

--OK, care to share the data, divided by socioeconomic class with us? It might also be interesting to see the data based on race or ethnic group as well - from a strictly scientific standpoint.

SemiSteve also continued: "Women are far more likely to listen to and heed the advice of a Midwife than they are that of a Doctor. Midwives also spend far more time with each client than Doctors do with their 'patients'. Note that Midwives do not use the term 'patient' because a mother is not sick; she is pregnant."

--Where did you get this, or is this your opinion, rather than fact? Women not listening to their doctors? Doesn't that strike you as pretty bloody stupid? If a doc tells you to do something for your health or that of your unborn kid, shouldn't you do it? Is there evidence that the white lab coat turns off their hearing? Once again, you've managed to read one book (and no scientific journal articles) that fits your world view, so then it's all of a sudden the new Gospel?

I showed you that your book was in error. Relatively few women have spinal damage from an epidural. You then said to me: "Oh, no, no, no.. I said back pain, not damage". OK, but what would you guess is the number of adults in America that experience back pain as adults? Nope, wrong, Steve.. guess again! It's one out of three - the same figure you quote from this bogus doctor and his book. One out of 3 adults in America have back pain. One out of three moms who get epidurals experience back pain. Hmmm.. sounds like 1) there isn't a cause/effect and 2) pregnancy/birth appears to be not statistically significant, and this from the evidence YOU presented.And, Steve, you still haven't disputed my point of all the socialist and socialist medicine countries that have MUCH WORSE outcomes in terms of infant mortality than the evil "pay for it" system of the USA. Plenty of socialist systems are WORSE than the US, and a lot worse at that. So what say you on that point? IMHO, socialist medicine IS NOT a significant factor when I consider those countries below us on the list. (again, FAROE ISLANDS is British territory. Doesn't it sound like maybe there's another factor that makes it worse than GB, since the Health care systems is the same as GB's National Health?)
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,164
Points:1,522,470
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 21, 2012 3:07:53 PM

Steve - "Yeah, well if you've got a boat with a thousand leaks it is not going to float until they are ALL plugged."

Ever hear of something called a bilge pump?
Post a reply Back to Topics