Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (239579)

12/8/2013 11:55:18 AM

From: Wharf Rat

Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 541604

"hospitals have to make a profit in our capitalistic design. "

Not that Medicare E wouldn't be better, but if hospitals had to make profits, we wouldn't have non and not for-profits.

aha.org

Total Number of All U.S. Registered * Hospitals	5,724
Number of U.S. Community ** Hospitals	4,973
Number of Nongovernment Not-for-Profit Community Hospitals	2,903
Number of Investor-Owned (For-Profit) Community Hospitals	1,025
Number of State and Local Government Community Hospitals	1,045
Number of Federal Government Hospitals	208
Number of Nonfederal Psychiatric Hospitals	421
Number of Nonfederal Long Term Care Hospitals	112
Number of Hospital Units of Institutions (Prison Hospitals, College Infirmaries, Etc.)

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (239579)	12/9/2013 5:04:15 PM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541604

I happen to think the problem described in the article was one of mismanagement and not a systemic one--although if you have details as to why it's taken them 3 years to get around to writing the implementing regs I'll listen. If those details relate to the fact that hospitals need to make money--or at least not lose money for their services then you could be right. I also think the AFCA's website flaws are/were mostly avoidable thru better oversight and doesn't go to your main argument. Your main argument i think does have some merit. We're trying to combine two ideas here (profit and subsidizing) into one plan and it creates tensions and dichotomies within the plan--that ultimately may be irreconcilable. It certainly is virgin territory for the country. Additionally, part of every new program is garnering political support for it, and part of that operation is seeing that the roll out happens as smoothly as possible. Unfortunately, this didn't happen here.