-
Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/
ObamaCare cancels construction of 60 new PRIVATELY owned hospitals
- Thread starter Melensdad
- Start date
Explain your comment as it makes no sense considering the fact that the hospitals NEED PERMISSION from the Obamacrats to build based on the following:
What will be the future of Medicine, is that you are going to be seen by what amounts to a Registered Nurse because we there won't be anywhere enough Doctors for the newly enhanced people that didn't want to work for their own health care, and will now get it free...
So to improve health care for those "Special" 30,000,000 folks newly anointed, the rest of us will have our levels dropped to match theirs....
So to improve health care for those "Special" 30,000,000 folks newly anointed, the rest of us will have our levels dropped to match theirs....
I'm just curious what is free about the new health care? You do know that the you will be required to buy insurance but if you income is too low the government will supplement it, like the do now with several large industries such as oil, farming, pharmaceuticals, and yes even the health insurance industry. Not much free here pal.
Just what would a liberal know about what makes a republican happy? Y'all just stand there with your hands over your ears saying "LA,LA,LA,LA,LA,LA,LA,LA,LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA......"
So, you didn't read the article?
Rob are you reading the same things the rest of us see on the screen?
The government is NOT FUNDING these hospitals. These are PRIVATELY FUNDED hospital.
The reason they are being cancelled is because ObamaCare made it ILLEGAL TO BUILD THEM under the rules contained in the 2000 pages passed by the Democrats.
They want to build them, they have the funding to build them, but the government now forbids private investors from building them.
"LA,LA,LA,LA,LA,LA,LA,LA,LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA......"
You didn't highlight enough .....
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.
Thanks BD, that is what I was going to post but you pointed it out.
Apparently Rob has some VERY SELECTIVE filters on his computer screen because he only sees what he wants to see.
Let's not confuse "government funding" with Medicare or Medicaid insurance payments.
First, the existing private hospitals aren't losing any "government funding." They just can't expand unless certain criteria are met to be eligible for Medicare and Medicaid payments.
Second, the only "government funding" cited by the article, was bond money awarded to the Hammond hospital to expand. But it seems this hospital will turn "government funding" down, as the restrictions from the new healthcare bill would not make it financially viable to expand. No Medicare or Medicaid patients, no need to expand. In other words, less beds for those insured by the gummint.
Like Kwiens said. Don't let facts get in the way.
First, the existing private hospitals aren't losing any "government funding." They just can't expand unless certain criteria are met to be eligible for Medicare and Medicaid payments.
Second, the only "government funding" cited by the article, was bond money awarded to the Hammond hospital to expand. But it seems this hospital will turn "government funding" down, as the restrictions from the new healthcare bill would not make it financially viable to expand. No Medicare or Medicaid patients, no need to expand. In other words, less beds for those insured by the gummint.
Like Kwiens said. Don't let facts get in the way.
Thank you. I should have known YOU, with the Sticky Buns flowing thru your veins, would finish the lyrics. Reps for that one!..
Lie la lie ... Lie la lie lie lie la lie, lie la lie....
No, the most of the people that don't have health care will be given it. The rest of us will pay for that, I am getting tired of bloated Government, this take from the Rich to give to the Poor is a load of crap.
The poor can go and get jobs from the rich and earn for themselves.
The truly handicapped, can get help from the rest of us, this is just another vote for the Democrats ploy to get votes at the cost of the masses.
Well, aren't we the insensitive bastard? Denying a handout to the lazy and the shiftless, just so you can keep more of your money that you went out and worked for is simply absurd. Don't you realize that you have benefited unfairly by having a job, showing up at said job, and doing said job to the best of your talent and ability? To deny some lazy welfare cheat of his piece of the pie (and his gubmint supplied cell phone so he can do his drug deals) is not where Yo Mama Obama, Nancy and Harry are trying to direct this country. You are obviously a radical right wingnut terrorist and should be hauled in by homeland insecurity for proper indoctrination.
"Earn for themself," sheesh, I have never heard anything quite so absurd in all my days. You really need help there friend.
One way or the other, Foggie, the role of Registered Nurse Practitioners and Physician's Assistance has been growing steadily. Simply put, we are not graduating the number of physicians required to meet the growing population. Many physicians employee these professionals in their offices. As a nurse, I may be a bit biased but in most cases, you do a darn sight better seeing a registered nurse than a doctor. They tend to be more thorough in their assessments and their listening skills. PAs and RNs are stepping up to meet the needs in rural communities because it is hard to recruit doctors into these areas. This trend you mention started before the passage of the healthcare bill and I don't think the bill will impact this trend one way or the other. I often times kick myself in the butt for not going to medical school. I thought I wasn't smart enough. After working with some of the bozos I have worked with over the years, I clearly see I underestimated myself. I'd trust a nurse in many cases over a medical doctor, any day especially if that nurse has critical care background. Nurses teach those docs, anyway. I have worked in teaching hospitals and in the middle of the night when the resident doesn't want to call and wake up the attending, it is the nurse he/she consults with and often times it is the nurse telling them what is usually done in the particular situation. It is the nurse who identifies problems and calls the doc. Seasoned nurses call the docs and tell them what they need. The docs trust the info these nurses provide them and order accordingly. So, in the inpatient arena, who is really taking care of these patients?
I don't know if you two are putting me on or if you really don't understand, but government funded health care is paid to the hospitals, doctors, and pharmacies. Yes it's paid FOR the patients, but it's paid TO the doctors and hospitals.
I think I understand what it is that Rob is pointing out, here. According to the article
The government is not saying these 60 hospitals can't be built. The government is saying these hospitals will be excluded from medicare and medicaid. The physicians cannot rely on private pay to make it a go so they are having to pull the plug on their project. They have to have government subsidized insurance to make it work. So what Rob should be saying is that there are not enough rich people (self pay) to make these ventures profitable.Article said:
It seems in a prior post there was some discussion about people working the welfare system to their best interest. Make no mistake, healthcare providers be they independent physician practices, hospitals, whatever....they too, know how to work the system and they do it.
Another thing to take into consideration. Hospitals have been struggling for years because physicians have been building outpatient surgery clinics which has taken outpatient surgical business away from the hospitals. These services are where the money is generated. Surgical Services are the life blood of hospitals. Hospitals lose money on patients with chronic disease processes that require long term hospitalization. The inpatient floors and ICUs are money suckers with the exception of neonatal ICUs....that is some big money for hospitals because everyone of those premature babies get government subsidy. For example a low birthweight baby qualifies immediately for SSI http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10026.html that along with CHIPs and Medicaid, is guaranteed income. (Medicaid assistance is available, without counting parents income or assets, for premature babies with a birth weight of under 1200 grams.)
Surgery is where the money is. Could it be that with this new healthcare bill we are actually saving hospitals in the long run? Many community and rural hospitals have closed their doors because they could not afford to stay open. How many of these closures occured because of independent physician surgical services? I don't know but I suspect it has had a lot to do with these closures. Between private competition and the bureaucratic red tape of the accrediting bodies, I can see where closures were/are inevitable.
Surgery is where the money is. Could it be that with this new healthcare bill we are actually saving hospitals in the long run? Many community and rural hospitals have closed their doors because they could not afford to stay open. How many of these closures occured because of independent physician surgical services? I don't know but I suspect it has had a lot to do with these closures. Between private competition and the bureaucratic red tape of the accrediting bodies, I can see where closures were/are inevitable.