Faux Noise produces another commercial for the Obama 2012 campaign.
Join LibraryThing to post.
This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
"...How long do you think Sean Hannity’s show would last if four times in one sentence, he made a comment about, say, the President of the United States, and said that he looked like a skinny, ghetto crackhead? Which, by the way, you might want to say that Barack Obama does.”
The problem with these right-wing whack-jobs is that they always go too far. If he had just said, "How long do you think Sean Hannity’s show would last if four times in one sentence, he made a comment about, say, the President of the United States, and said that he looked like a skinny, ghetto crackhead?", he would have been fine.
But then he had to negate the comparative use of the phrase, which was not a personal attack, by then saying, "Which, by the way, you might want to say that Barack Obama does.”, which was a disgusting personal attack against President Obama.
There are certain personality types who will use personal attacks by referring to a physical appearence. They do this because they lack any thing substancial to use as an arguement and even if they did, the intellegence level to offer up a valid point is often lacking. It if very difficult to defend one's self against such an attack. Individuals are often hard pressed to "defend" physicial apsects of their being.
As far as I can tell, this type of action seems to come from Conservatives more than Liberals. Conservatives also seem to lack an ability to laugh at themselves which also seems to put them on the defensive more often. If one has the ability to see their own weaknesses, it would follow that they are less inclinded to point out those of others.
Hypocrisy ! I mean did this guy look in the mirror this morning ???: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2077319/Michelle-Obama-large-posterior-R...
From my home State ! Good example of many conservative principles???? ...... eats too much....flaps his jaw too much .... and hides where he lives with "fake" addresses and bogus condo's located in less than exclusive area's.
An attack on a person's appearance is as low as you can go. As you say, you cannot defend yourself against them. I don't like it from liberals or conservatives but I am always more disappointed when liberals do it (I'm talking to you Chris Mathews!) because I expect it from conservatives.
I also don't like the suggestion with these attacks that if a person is somehow physically lacking (and none of us are perfect), that what they say or represent is somehow less important. It reminds me of what Donald Trump said after that Prejean person was going on about "opposite marriage". Trump suggested people pay more attention to attractive people so what they say is more important or some such drivel.
"Trump suggested people pay more attention to attractive people so what they say is more important or some such drivel."
I gather that Mr. Trump fancies himself to be a "looker" ?
what can one say about a "NEWS" channel that would air an interview such as this ?
I am not the best at expressing myself, can't spell for crap but I am not running for public office, not even a small little post in a tiny little town, let alone President or Vice President.
Notice Obama's socialist attitudes are why we are seeing the mortgage crisis.
She is shrinking for a reason, one wonders why Fox News isn't disappearing right along with her ?
The U.S. has close to 200 million adult citizens. Something like 1.5 per cent of them are diehard viewers of Faux Noise. That is quite enough to make that particular political whorehouse a financial success - at least in the short run.
#3: As far as I can tell, this type of action seems to come from Conservatives more than Liberals.
Nevermind that it was in response to a clip of Chris Matthews' caricature of Newt Gringrich. And there's more than enough "dumb redneck" rhetoric from the Left to say that it's a toss-up. Like it or not, caricature has its place in the derision of political hacks on both sides of the aisle. I couldn't imagine missing an episode of Jon Stewart.
Personally, I don't see what's so insulting about be called a ghetto crackhead. It's a much more honorable (and victimless) station in life than Barack'll Bombya's current occupation.
The world of 24 hour cable news has made this a never ending cycle. If you go back 25 years (and every year before that) there were always battles between political parties; however, once an election was over we all moved forward, for those who won were now our representatives.
Think about it: if you asked a Republican in 1961 who his president was, I'll bet he'd proudly say, "John F. Kennedy." Yes, that man may have wanted Nixon to win, but once the election was over the pride (as a country) was greater than the pride of his political party.
I feel that has changed. People put down the President for political reasons because (in a weird way) they don't really see him as THEIR president. I find that odd. If you were to burn an American flag in public a lot of people would get quite angry, for the flag is a symbol that represents our country. And yet, the President is too (a symbol that represents the U.S. to the rest of the world) and people don't defend him with the same kind of pride. Puzzling.
#9: If you were to burn an American flag... And yet, the President is too (a symbol that represents the U.S. to the rest of the world) and people don't defend him with the same kind of pride. Puzzling.
This is sentimental collectivist tripe designed to dispel any individual responsibility for all the crap those in power have done. I don't owe the winner of a TV game show any kind of loyalty. But at least that piece of fabric you call a flag hasn't killed anyone.
"But at least that piece of fabric you call a flag hasn't killed anyone"
This piece of fabric has been raised over quite a few bloody battlefields......there have been plenty of deaths to the glory of this piece of fabric.
Respect for the office of President is not mandatory but it does say alot about how one feels for their country as a whole.
Disagreeing with the policies of a sitting President is different than disagreeing with the individual on a personal level. The first speakes of one's political feelings, the second speaks of one's personal judgements and prejudices.
You can disagree with someone yet still show respect for what they represent. They are two separate things. I don't have to agree with my boss or my father or my wife but I can still show respect for them or for their opinions. And I can put the pride of my country ahead of the pride of my party.
That's what cable TV and online blogs have changed: we never get around to accepting the other party (or their opinions) because gloating has become a 24/7 product that never reaches an end.
WSJ-Fox News is confused about Obama's decision to conduct vacations in his home state of Hawaii.
Perhaps a Fox News camera crew, assigned to cover the Presidential vacation, was dispatched to Kenya ?
#11: This piece of fabric has been raised over quite a few bloody battlefields......there have been plenty of deaths to the glory of this piece of fabric.
Point taken, but what I meant is that it's an inanimate object that does not inflict harm of its own accord. As the saying goes, flags don't kill people, people kill people. Better yet is George Carlin's suggestion to "leave symbols to the symbol-minded."
#12: And I can put the pride of my country ahead of the pride of my party.
Sorry, but anyone who takes pride in either of those isn't expressing emotions any more valid than one's pride in a sports team. Only difference is that if the captain of a team had been coordinating murders overseas (or doing most anything else presidents get up to), we wouldn't have all this theatrical hand-waving about what the team captain supposedly "represents" to distract us from what he's actually done.
#17--yeah, I think we'd be better off getting away from all the jingoism and start admitting at least to ourselves that the United States can be just as fucked up a nation as practically any other nation and it doesn't matter whether it's the GOP or the democrats running the show.
In this 21st century there is a lot not to be very proud about how our country conducts itself especially in relation to other countries. Our government for one has decided that preemptive military actions, torture, detention without trial are okay. Our government for a long time has thought it has a right to play policeman around the world and to interfere with other governments and with their election processes as well. In the last few months we've seen militarized police breaking up so-called 'unlawful' assemblies however they please--more often than not with much more force than needed. So now we're seeing domestic problems can be ignored-with force. The wealth gap doesn't really concern our pro patria politicians. If the public needs a diversion maybe we could hit Iran next.
Meanwhile the hosannas to the flag. I've got better things to do.
>17 Lunar: & >18 lriley:
I am inclined to agree with you. However, the recent disrespect for our current President doesn't seem to have much to do with his policies or those of this country. In fact, there are those who flew the flag upside down Nov 4th 2007......(which to my mind should have occured when we bombed Baghdad)
not a flag waver myself, nor am I inclined to "hero" worship but this activity suggests more of a disrespect for the person than for the office. While it is important to be vigilant, it is equally important not to be stupid.
In a recent interview Fox noise did with Palin she so much as suggested that Obama's policies were responsible for the morgage crisis.
Then there is this :
You are right ..... no Al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to the Bush years....where is the outrage ? Problem is, we have plenty of outrage but most of it is being mis directed.....Obama seems to be taking the hit for everything, from the Wall Street debacle to the "ending" of the war. My bet would be that Obama will be blamed for this situation as well. As I see it, this isn't going to fix any of the issues, in fact it is merely a distraction to keep doing business as usual.
Is Obama a "player" or is he a "target" .......an easy mark ? I can't say, he hasn't been around all that long, he is an easy target due to his race and half of this country seems to be running on stupid.
Is there a solution to this ? and does it matter WHO we put in office.....any office ?
The recent actions of this country have been less than respectable....we treat each other horribly but I'm not all convinced that this is Obama's fault, nor can the blame rest totally with the government....IMO, many American's need to look into a mirror if they want to see this country go in a better direction. Blaming the "government" is a cop out.
#19: Blaming the "government" is a cop out.
No, not really. Blaming Obama may be a cop out if you're a Republican and blaming Bush is a cop out if you're Democrat. Both are in favor of policies that led to the mortgage crisis. Obama may not have been in office when those policies had their effect on the housing bubble, but demand-side economics is still very much a part of Obama's policies as with previous administrations.
Put more simply, Obama's policies led to the mortage crisis, but before he inherited those policies from his predecessors.
When looking to blame someone, I always find myself back where I started.....us, the majority of us who took their eyes off the ball. Those whose self interest and desire for all that which was a benefit to them immediately, overruled any thought as to what the affect would be in the future.
From top to bottom.....nobody gets a pass on this one. The abuse on the bottom is no greater than the abuse on the top.
#21: .nobody gets a pass on this one
There's no such thing as collective guilt. I've been voting against this crap long enough that I think I do get a free pass. It's not my fault people vote for candidates that purvey the policies that hurt them.
#22--problem is I think we've been a long time pursuing the free markets ideology of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman--that every republican and democratic president since Reagan have embraced--that Ron Paul wants to ratchet up. It has driven millions of jobs offshore. It has created a tiny super wealthy elite--including the Koch brothers and the Walton family. It has done much damage to the middle and working classes. Absolutely destroyed sectors of our economy. For those few elite now there are masses of have nots.
There are things I can agree with Paul on--but not his economic agenda.
#23: that every republican and democratic president since Reagan have embraced--that Ron Paul wants to ratchet up.
Darn. Why didn't anyone tell me that Ron Paul is in favor of rachetting up prohibition, inflation, bureaucratization, manipulating interest rates, deficit spending, corporate welfare, the military-industrial complex, demand-side intervention, and subsidies to healthcare and education that result in skyrocketing costs and everything else that we've been doing all along?
Or maybe we should have a group read of Meltdown or something like it and stop pretending that free market economics has anything to do with the mess we find ourselves in.
There may be no collective guilt but there seems to be a collective punishment.
Maybe I should have said "collective consequences".
This is one of the problems with libertarian thinking, all is well and good to be self reliant, self governing but it is then important for individuals to realize that they do not live on this planet alone. The actions they engage in affect those around them and at some point, will affect themselves in some manner.
Doesn't take many to make people to make a mess of things. What is even more discouraging is the complacency of most everyone if they are unable to feel directly the effects of poor behavior. It will eventually come around....it always does.
Watched the abuse of the medical/healthcare system from both sides.....patient and institutional, during the 80s and the 90s......ran around like chicken little, proclaiming dire effects from the abuses, was often asked why the heck I cared since "insurance" covered most of the abuse. I am part of a society and though I was careful not to participate in abuse of the system....I find, at this point in time, though I was aware of the coming debacle, I am, at this point in time, forced to pay huge amounts for my health care coverage . Collective consequences !
"It has created a tiny super wealthy elite--including the Koch brothers and the Walton family."
Why then did we flock to the stupid WalMart stores ?? As a middle class mass, we had the power to make the decison to buy a little less and continue to support our local businesses.....the more people engaged in the "more is better" philosophy, the less quality we see and the Walton's become ever more wealthy.
As I see it, we can not claim a lack of guilt in our own circumstances.
I do NOT shop at Walmart, I refuse, however, my choice of stores is getting smaller every year and in many places, Walmart is now the only game in town.
WalMart in a small community will put the local pharmacy, hardware store, grocery store, gift shop, optician's office and florest out of business.
Like a vicious circle......the more we demand cheap crap, the less we are able to afford anything BUT cheap crap . And yet, nothing is really cheaper, if anything the cost of maintaining is higher than ever.
Did the Walton's do this ? or did we ? How did government policies dictate the middle class behavior in this particular scenerio ?
Off subject.....WalMart (Walton) rant :
Story about Sony products and Walmart. All those cheap television sets that people rush to buy are just that "cheap".
Have a little place in a small town in northern Wisconsin. My son bought me a television set for up there....at Walmart...it was "reasonable". The closest town to my place has a Walmart, they also have a furniture store that sells quality appliances but they are a bit more expensive.
Lightning hit my electrical box one summer and fried my television....it was only two years old. Called Walmart, no repairs made by them, and since it was over a year old, my only option was to buy another one. Called the little furniture store and they offered to look at it. Can't work on it was the answer. Walmart buys the "right" to put the Sony name on these sets and the repair manuels are not available. A REAL Sony has a repair manuel and they can be fixed. It is not in the best interest of Walmart for you to be able to fix your television, nor are you getting what you think you are when you buy a Sony television from Walmart. I replaced my television with a set from the furniture store, it cost a little bit more but not a whole lot as I chose a smaller screen. Did not want a "fake" Sony from Walmart! The little furniture store is no longer in business.... the repair man is out of a job , Walmart certainly doesn't have a use for him. If anything happens to my newer set, Walmart is the only place in town with television sets available. Sets that are cheaper, made by people who are making dime's on a dollar and sold by store clerks who are paid so miserably that they qualify for state aided insurance.
We seem to settle for this kind of garbage and then blame the government for our lack of self restraint or our lack of ability to see that our actions are going to eventually have an effect on the whole.
#24--which isn't to say that Obama's economic policies (albeit however different) haven't been disappointing or Romney or Gingrich if they win. I'm sorry--but we've never been in agreement on any of this Lunar and it isn't going to happen in the future either. I said back before the last election that this country needed a new 'New Deal'. It didn't happen. That shit makes you cringe like yours makes me cringe. Obama was talking more like FDR back then. Got fooled once. Not going to get fooled again at least by the same crew.
I feel your pain. It seems that we live in a me-me-me society geared solely towards the individual. And it seems perpetual: I often feel torn between supporting the Mom and Pop store vs. shopping at Walmart; after all, at the end of the day, I could spend $50 more and support my local business or I could save that money by buying the exact same Samsung TV at a big box store. It's not always an easy decision.
What's missing for lots of people is the understanding of how their small actions (when added to the small actions of many others) leads to big results. (Or, perhaps it's not missing at all--perhaps it's more like, "No one's watching out for me... it's up to ME to buy good deals, find the best prices, etc.)
I'd like to know how other cultures do it--how they convince people to sacrifice individually (so as to) do what's right for the masses. In the USA it's usually the law; it is SOOO so difficult to convince people to do what's right simply for right's sake.
I was in Manhattan this week and I'm always reminded of this aspect of our culture simply watching people cross the street. The light changes, yet people continue to cross, holding up one car, then another, then another. Eventually the cars do get to go but then one person sees an opportunity to save 5 seconds, runs out, and as the car stops the light does change and then many start to cross, again, with no one really caring about who holds up who, bumps into who or what rules are followed and why. Everyone's out for him or herself in a mass of individuals all doing virtually the same thing, not really thinking much (or caring) about the overall value to the group.
When I lived in Tokyo 20 years ago it was quite different: somehow the concept of "doing what was right" kept people from crossing even when they could, even when the one or two stray people who did do it made it tempting. And Tokyo was and always has been as busy and competitive as New York, so it's not like comparing Manhattan to Kansas City. It was just that, in spite of all the busyness there was still a higher calling if you will--some kind of desire to do what was better for society, and this desire had a truly synergistic effect.
What makes some people take pride in their contribution to a society while others feel none is hard to say. But it's there. Somewhere, somehow, the belief that saving a few minutes or a few dollars is worth more than contributing to your society--especially when others seem way too busy to recognize your contribution in the first place. No one's gonna pat me on the back at the end of the week because I spent 75 extra dollars helping a small town store stay competitive: in the end, I have to do it simply because that contribution matters more to me than saving money.
(Please forgive us everybody, for we've really gotten way off topic here, but greed (in its many forms) has a very distinct effect on our society.)
#26: The actions they engage in affect those around them and at some point, will affect themselves in some manner.
This is true. And rarely can one find a such a problem that wasn't first enabled by government. Your story about hospitals charging insurance companies as much as they could get away with is a good example of this since competition among hospitals is severely limited by having to get a certificate of need. Because of the monopolistic conditions this requirement creates, consumers and insurers have limited options when faced with a medical institution that feels it can charge whatever it likes. I blame Nixon.
#28: I said back before the last election that this country needed a new 'New Deal'. It didn't happen.
I dunno, there's been plenty of stuff going through congress capable of doing the kind of economic damage the New Deal did. You might want to consider that wish granted. The only good thing that came out of that was the 22nd amendment.
#30--regarding FDR and the New Deal--Obama could have for instance focused on job programs--putting people back to work--expanding the tax base. Keeping it all (or most of it all) in country. Lots of infastructure--roads and bridges. Collateral good to business that can help support these programs. This should have been a key thing for Obama. We bailed out Wall Street instead. We've passed more Nafta like trade bills. Obama IMO may not be as big business friendly as GWB but he's still in the ballpark with kowtowing to the same assholes--these same assholes meanwhile funding groups who would be more than happy to dance around a fire with Obama's head on the end of a pike.
I don't think Obama is a bad guy but I think he's lost his way and very early on. His administration unable to offer viable solutions to the problems this country has.
Does "certificate of need" have to do with maintaining a nonprofit status ? Hospitals, clinics....what ever, enjoy a nonprofit status....no taxes. However, they do make profits and they spend foolishly to maintain the nonprofit status. Some are doing so well that they have Swiss bank accounts. If this is the case, why then don't they pick up a share of the tax burden ? or lower the cost of care to the patient ? and how is this the fault of the government ?
I don't see how one can blame the government. It seems to me that the government steps in to right a wrong or what could be considered a glaring inequity and those who are self serving find a way around what was originally intended to create another bad situation.
Do you honestly think that if government would disappear, people would treat each other any better ?
In a sense you are correct as every new solution the government comes up with....someone sidesteps and makes things worse. Perhaps we should deal with the "side-steppers" THAT doesn't seem to be an option that is on the table.
I wish we would act in such a manner that government would find itself with nothing to do. Would be the best way to get rid of big government !
Unfortunately, the solutions you just pointed out, are by nature, socialistic. I think that the Right was aware that any type of solution to the giant debacle that was left behind in 2000 would have to a big sweeping program with a wide base of population being affected.....they started crying "Socialist" before Obama was sworn in and haven't stopped yet.
BIG problems call for BIG solutions......too much concentrated money at the top for that to happen.
#32--more or less all coming down to ideological views. People in this country use to complain about Marxism being a kind of substitute religion. It's heresy on the other hand to say the same thing about good old capitalism.
#32: I don't see how one can blame the government.
Of course not. When government zoning prevents hospitals from being built, that's not the fault of government. It's the fault of magical sprites living underground who want revenge for everything we might build. And when these conditions allow for costs to rise through the resultant suppression of competition, the solution is to tax hospitals and make their costs rise even more.
I mean, I guess I could still blame Nixon, but he's dead. Who I should really blame are those who harbor the superstitions that maintain these harmful policies.
There are more considerations to zoning a hospital than restricting competition. As far as I know, townships have a lot of rights when it comes to the construction of a medical facility, no different than any type of business.
The difference being that a hospital does not contribute to the tax base yet it requires considerations in so far as maintance of roadways, availabity to emergency entrances, waste disposal facilities and/or availability to pick up ....I'm thinking that it is not so simple as you are assuming.
Having a hospital on every corner is not the answer.....at this point in time, insurance companies are mandating which hospital one can go to, so our local hospital is half empty and patients seeing docs at the clinics in town have to travel a half hour to a "new" hospital in a different town.
The healthcare mess is a quagmire of government regulations, insurance nonsense and personal greed. Stand by my opinion that blaming the government is a cop out. Government may contribute but for the most part, we have a mess or our own making.
Is there a link to the zoning laws you are referencing ?
There are for profit hospitals in the US. Here's a GAO report comparing nonprofit, for profit, and gov't hospitals, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05743t.pdf.
thank you for the link. Not sure what Lunar is referencing as to zoning regulations and hospital construction.
What I do know is that one of the biggest health care organizations in this state has built clinics in almost every town and burg in the southern part of the state and are now moving northward. Many of these little buildings are vacant.
Also know that the top C.E.O. is known for two big statements, first being "Just because we are nonprofit does not mean that we can not make money" and when instituting a hiring/pay freeze on all employees "Please remember that you are here to serve your community" (after receiving an eight million dollar bonus for the year.)
Somehow, to me, this explains a little bit about my cost everytime I walk through the door of the clinic. (Competition ? Gone....bought out by this clinic....which is nick named "The Walmart of healthcare") And I fail to see what the government has to do with this other than to not be aggressive enough with nonprofit organizations as to how they allocate the profits they are not making.
#35: Is there a link to the zoning laws you are referencing ?
Sigh... Certificate of Need. When you persist in being so apathetic about monopolies set up by government (because, it seems, blaming the problem on the source of the problem is a "cop out"), you hardly have any right to complain when the consequences of monopoly hinder your corner of reality. It seems that all you have to do is invoke the ethereal "personal greed" for government policy to be beyond reproach.
#36: There are for profit hospitals in the US.
Thank you for the non sequitur of the day. The private status of a hospital hardly matters when the government takes upon itself to suppress competition.
I was addressing faceinbook who seemed the think that only nonprofit hospitals exist in the US.
Thank you for the link. I believe this, like anything can work two ways.... worked in medical facilities most of my prime working life. The intention of the law has been circumvented and the abuse takes place anyway.
For me, the biggest question that comes to mind in regards to healthcare : Why is a basic human need up on an aution block in the first place. Competition creates greed. The affects of competition have put the patient in the middle of an expensive war between, insurance co., medical facilities, doctors pay , CEO compensation, drug companies, medical supply companies, hospitals.......has very little to do with patient care or we would have the top care in the world, as we pay the most for our care.....this is not the case.
I suspect some of the consideration in Certificate of Need would the requirements within a community in regards to constructing a hospital.....it is not a simple operation, nor is it cheap....not sure how the costs would be covered if we had a hospital next to every Walgreens on every other corner. Who would pay for the expense ?
IMO, making big money and competing for wealth, should not be the primary goal behind promoting a healthy population. It is constantly working against itself. The best interest of the patient is wellness, the best interest of ALL of the entities involved are a substancial number of ill people.
Thanks...... worked for a nonprofit mental health hospital, briefly.......talk about promoting mental illness ! It served them well to have a half crazed community. Was a nightmare....the staff was just as looney as the patients but that is a whole different subject.
#40: Competition creates greed.
So in your example of hospitals charging insurance companies as much as they can, who exactly are they competing against?
Sorry, but competition does not create greed. Greed comes from opportunism. Opportunism itself is neutral. It only becomes "greed" when expressed under conditions where the people involved are unaccountable. The only way to eliminate greed is by removing opportunities to be greedy. Setting up a monopoly creates that opportunity. It is the source of the problem and you can't effectively address the problem without addressing the source.
not sure how the costs would be covered if we had a hospital next to every Walgreens on every other corner. Who would pay for the expense?
But see, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that hospitals are awash with money ripe for taxation and then say that there isn't enough money to support cost-cutting alternatives. And empty hospital beds are not an argument for monopoly, but a symptom of the inefficiencies of monopoly.
It's somewhat ironic that you mention Walgreens. Along with retailers like Walmart, Walgreens is starting to provide in-store clinics where uninsured people can visit with a primary care physician. Often these retail clinics will post their fees so you can see upfront what it costs. How often do hospital visitors realize what their services cost? I realize some people like to turn their nose up at the likes of Walmart, but that's a poor excuse to deprive poor people of affordable medical services. Of course, that doesn't stop snobs at the AMA trying to raise a stink about them.
Also, something people aren't always aware of is that if your emergency ranks low on triage, instead of going to an emergency room you can go to an urgent care center. Division of labor is a major way to cut expenses, so I don't see how one can protest allowing alternatives to establish themselves.
Agree with you on several of the things you mentioned, especially posting costs, but I did not say that hospitals could not do some cost cutting. I know what they do with the extra money....they build additions that sit empty and fill them with equipment they can not possibly use....equipment that is so costly that individuals who sell this stuff, usually do not have to work more than a couple days per week.
Was a charge on one of my bills years back for $17.95.....a "mucus recovery system" Because I care...and actually read my bill, I questioned this item......was a box of Kleenex. Alerted the insurance company and complained to the facility. IMO, if people would start to pay attention it may help.
There is enough money in the healthcare system today to take care of every person in this country. Without constructing more buildings.
Some of the cost of care comes from the outrageous saleries and bonuses demanded by doctors and medical CEOs, these saleries and bonuses are paid so as to STAY competitive.
WalMart clinics are fine.......but should a patient need hospitalization...that patient will need to be admitted by a physician who has hospital priviledges....also by a facility who accepts the insurance carried by that patient. If the patient is on Medicare or Medicaid....then it is costing those who are still paying insurance, copays, deductables, coinsurance and what ever else the insurance company can think of to eliminate the amount paid out and insure a healthy bottom line.
Going to go right back to saying that I don't believe that we should be allowing a basic need like healthcare to be played with by so many business entities where the only objective is to raise the bottom line.
I doubt that Walmart is opening clinics out of the kindness of their hearts. They will be making money while eliminating the smaller drug stores, opticians offices and stand alone clinics. Walmart is eliminating competition in it's own way and the quality of what it provides is questionable.
Not a simple mess to fix.....and it really got messy when it became so competative....with the patient in the middle.
#42: There is enough money in the healthcare system today to take care of every person in this country. Without constructing more buildings.
It's almost like every time I pass by one of several different major hospitals in the area, there's always some degree of reconstruction going on since they have more money than they know what to do with. But again, you're taking what is a symptom of monopoly and confusing it for a reason to keep it. Competition doesn't mean building a lot of buildings the way a monopoly does. It means the money isn't guaranteed to all go into one entity's pocket. It means they have to actually earn what they make or else they'll lose business to someone else.
The inflated doctor salaries are the same thing. The easy money feeds unnecessarily high bids on everything from doctor income to equipment prices.
I don't think it is that simple to fix. So much of our system is messed up.....smaller clinics simply can not sustain themselves due to insurance reasons. Malpractice insurance for doctors, something the government is reluctant to address, is too expensive unless the cost is spread out. The write off for Medicare and Medicaid needs to be absorbed, this is easier for the bigger clinics.
Plus, what starts out small, grows....it is the nature of anything to get bigger. One of the clinics in Wisconsin is trying to become the monopoly of healthcare in the State.
I know what competition is.......and it seems to me we are looking at a "chicken or the egg" type of thing.
Unless someone defines how "big" a company can be or "how much is enoungh" when it comes to profit margins, clinic, hospital, pharmacutical company, insurance company, medical equipment supplier....are going to use our healthcare issues to increase their bottom line......
Is any other business any different ?
Who is doing the best, in so far as business, in our current economy ? I don't see the healthcare industry and being any different than the banks, or the big box stores, or fast food chains.....the ONLY difference is a morality issue.
Is our healthcare something to be used to promote capitalism ? As it is now, the bottom is getting left behind, the middle, who is paying for the greastest share of costs, is shrinking and the top doesn't give a rip. Same old same old......
I think healthcare is very competative......
It doesn't make sense to have three big hospitals in neighboring counties. How does one staff a hospital without keeping up the census ? Why not have one efficient hospital which is WELL staffed, rather than three struggling hospitals that are understaffed ?
The problem is not simple enough to merely blame the government, IMO.
#44: smaller clinics simply can not sustain themselves due to insurance reasons.
Huh? You come from a planet without small clinics?
One of the clinics in Wisconsin is trying to become the monopoly of healthcare in the State.
The state, (small "s," neither of us is writing German here) is not a cute little baby with a rattle. If that clinic is really becoming a monopoly, all bets are on your state being complicit with them in various ways actively helping it to become a monopoly.
Plus, what starts out small, grows....it is the nature of anything to get bigger.
No, these things don't just spontaneously grow out of nowhere. If something gets too big, it becomes more sluggish. Normally this would be a check against wasteful growth, but you can count on the government to protect them from smaller more flexible competitors.
I know what competition is.
Apparently not because you were never able to answer who the hospital is competing against when they decide to charge as much as possible.
Is our healthcare something to be used to promote capitalism?
Now we've come to the heart of it. You complain about the waste, but as soon as I point out how that's due to what your government has been doing to prop up these corporate dinosaurs, you start making exuses for the status quo. Sorry, but depriving poor people of healthcare in the name of ideology is just sick. If allowing for competitors is so terribly "simple," what are you afriad of?
Why not have one efficient hospital which is WELL staffed, rather than three struggling hospitals that are understaffed ?
Monopolist fantasies. But at least you're honest about wanting just one big hospital monopoly. Your trouble is you can't admit that what you support is part of the problem. Competition doesn't mean a duplication of the big dinosaur you seem to be so enamoured of. It means that if someone is unhappy with what they get, someone else is allowed to provide an alternative without your cronies getting in the way.
Oh, and that bit about the "census"... Do you think your local grocer needs to check the census to decide how much he needs to stock his shelves and forestall the doom of mass starvation? Try not to think so narrowly.
Sorry, I do not believe that if given the option of doing the right thing, or making money, most CEO's will decide to do the right thing.
I worked in a hospital.....census is everything ! It can mean lay offs or over time......it is unpredictable. The cost of running a hospital is huge....no way can they sustain themselves without maintaining a certain census.
The issue is not that simple.....
We will not see eye to eye on this.....I was employed by clinics, hospitals, insurance companies....did the rounds. They are very competitive and they have lost sight of those they are there to take care of.....the patient. Government intervention is often detrimental because what is intended is distorted.....and once again, the "government" is us.....we elect our lawmakers.
Our healthcare system is working against itself....competition is not necessarly the answer to that. In fact in many ways competition is detrimental to what is best for all......a physically healthy society. It is in the best interest of all those involved in the system to generate more patients. Backwards !
#46: Sorry, I do not believe that if given the option of doing the right thing, or making money, most CEO's will decide to do the right thing.
That's neither here nor there. Neither is it an excuse for monopoly.
I worked in a hospital.....census is everything!
For a dysfunctional monopoly propped up by government, I have no doubt that's the case.
The cost of running a hospital is huge
Yes, I wonder why...
The issue is not that simple.
Oh, but it is. You're an admitted fan of having one big hospital monopoly and when you start to notice the expected consequences of having a monopoly, you complain. Hypocrisy doesn't get any simpler or more transparent than that.
They are very competitive...
You still haven't said who the hospital is competing against when staff decide to charge as much as they can. All the problems you have cited can be traced back to their ability to get ahold of that easy money.
and once again, the "government" is us.....we elect our lawmakers.
Biggest copout ever. That's logically equivalent to saying "Dancing With the Stars" is "us." You'd turn your nose up at a reality TV show running the country. It's an inherently flawed decision-making process that subverts even the most well-intentioned participants and you'd more readily blame the people rather than the system.
>47 Lunar: "You still haven't said who the hospital is competing against when staff decide to charge as much as they can. All the problems you have cited can be traced back to their ability to get ahold of that easy money."
It is NOT that simple......you have accused me of thinking narrowly....there are so many entities involved in the medical mess that makes up our system.
And, you consistantly avoid the issue as to whether our physical well being or lack there of should be someone's profit margin. Explain to me how a competitive system, a system that makes it's profit margin off of sick people is a good thing ? How does it not "thrive" on illness ?
This is the biggest part of the issue for me, the most important......as I believe it should be for most everyone. Of course if you have never been involved in the system, it is not something that is easy to grasp.
"You still haven't said who the hospital is competing against when staff decide to charge as much as they can. All the problems you have cited can be traced back to their ability to get ahold of that easy money."
In part you are correct....how ever the "easy money" you referred to, isn't being had by those who are working the hardest. No different than any other big business today. The money is at the top. Not quite sure how the government is invovled in the pay scale of today's business culture ?
" you'd more readily blame the people rather than the system."
People are part of the system and I would at least give equal blame to the people. American's abuse the healthcare system on a daily basis.......the 80' and 90s were horrible for that. Not sure how they figured that the bill wasn't going to come due soon enough.
Adds for drugs on television, promoting uneccessary procedures, medicating every symptom possible, unneccessary lawsuits, learned helplessness when it comes to taking care of ourselves.....all part of a system "feeding itself". If you take any and all government out of the process, not sure how it would change.
We will not ever agree on this......to me it is both a fiscal issue AND a moral issue. The moral issue is the most important part of the equation in my opinion. A system that profits from other people's illness just fails to make any sense to me what so ever.....don't care what the government does or doesn't do. Business and the money invovled in that business will find a way to feed itself....with or without restrictions. Making "big money" off of sick people is ....well.....sick !
Did you read the link in post number 36 ??
Given the average saleries of doctor's in the bigger clinics, and the lifestyles of the physicians I've worked with, I have a hard time coming up with sympathy for most of them......but, I wonder what the issues in this article have to do with government ? Other than cutting medicare for those who really need the system the most, it would seem that insurance companies pretty much run their own show, or have until recently. Sure they have sidestepped any inconvience placed on them by the new healthcare restrictions.
A sad sorry system...top to bottom. Can't blame government...THAT is a copout !!
#48: And, you consistantly avoid the issue as to whether our physical well being or lack there of should be someone's profit margin.
Actually, you've already answered this one for me. The answer is because: the "easy money" you referred to, isn't being had by those who are working the hardest.
In your monopoly system, profits go to the corrupt instead of to those who work for it. Without your monopoly system, there would be a greater opportunity for people who provide more bang for the buck to undercut the businesses who use money wastefully. Note that I'm not saying that it would be a magic utopia. I'm saying that without your government suppressing alternatives, profit and loss are a measure of how effectively a business is providing a service.
Making "big money" off of sick people is ....well.....sick !
But that's what you are promoting. In a monopoly, the hospital is going to make more money than they actually worked to earn: Big money. It's all well and good to claim that it's a moral issue with you. But even someone as anti-intellectual as you are regarding economics should know better than to prefer a monopoly. I find it morally reprehensible to have a monopoly obstruct the opportunity for people to offer better, more cost-efficient, choices in healthcare.
#49: Given the average saleries of doctor's in the bigger clinics, and the lifestyles of the physicians I've worked with, I have a hard time coming up with sympathy for most of them......but, I wonder what the issues in this article have to do with government?
Stop and think it through. Your government props up these hospitals and mega-medical groups... who then have access to easy money from all the patient traffic driven their way... who then have an increased bidding advantage in hiring doctors with the easy money they've gotten... and you're left scratching your head about why smaller practices are going out of business?
I mean, it takes some thought, but it's not rocket science.
#48: People are part of the system and I would at least give equal blame to the people.
People act in response to incentives. Your beloved system distorts those incentives. A person may stop and wonder about the right thing to do, but it's hard to always do the right thing when the system drives you towards your baser nature.
"People act in response to incentives. Your beloved system distorts those incentives. A person may stop and wonder about the right thing to do, but it's hard to always do the right thing when the system drives you towards your baser nature."
Read that out loud...to yourself ! The answer to the whole mess had nothing to do with government and everything to do with individuals refusing to act towards their baser natures....system or no system. Government tends to get involved when enough people act against what is the best for the majority (our government was intended to do this until most of them seem to, at this point in time, follow the dictates of their baser natures)
"Your beloved system"
Not my beloved system !!! Far from ! I would venture to guess that anyone other than the top CEO's in most of the companies involved in this debacle would consider this system any where close to "beloved". Those who actually WORK with patients know what the system is about and find it far from endearing.
"But even someone as anti-intellectual as you are regarding economics"
It very well may be that I am not all that educated when it comes to economics but I am pretty good at seeing the big picture and your thoughts on this have some validity but to say that government is the issue when there are so many entities involved is short sighted. We made the mess and we need to fix the mess. To simply say that "government" is the problem is not looking at the entire picture.
It would seem to me that you are blaming the government for what is the current trend in any big business today.
And again, healthcare, by it's very nature, should not be a "business". This is a contradiction to the goal of having a physically healthy society.
A small clinic can not stay in business for many reasons....cost of health insurance for employees....malpractice insurance for the doctors.....cost of maintaining and having access to the latest equipment....
As far as I know, the government has little or nothing to do with the COST of health insurance, there are no caps on malpractice insurance or no definition of what constitutes validity for a law suit, and medical supply companies are making a mint......if a salesman sells two pieces of equipment...his week is done. Usually they work two or three days per week. Haven't even mentioned the pharmacutical companies and their high jinks.
It is a colossal mess of our own making and if we continue to point a finger at the government and use the excuse that "we can't help ourselves cause the system made me do it".....it is never going to be fixed. Creating a new system to abuse is certainly not the answer but continuing as we are will mean just that....more government, as we do not seem to have the where with all to govern ourselves.
#51: To simply say that "government" is the problem is not looking at the entire picture.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that I'm speaking in generalities about government culpability. Considering that we've been talking about the specific effects of specific policies, particularly regarding provisions for local monopolies, to say that I'm "simply" blaming government is a copout. It would be like someone saying that I'm "simply" blaming government if I mention that the US bombs civilians. It's evading the issue.
As far as I know, the government has little or nothing to do with the COST of health insurance
Cost has been the only thing we have both been talking about. The problem is that you see the greed you have witnessed within the system as having come out of nowhere (or human nature, which is pointless to blame until we get robots to do everything for us). Again, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that the opportunity for greedy exploitation (such as overcharging insurance which makes insurance costs go up) is greater with a monopoly than without. That's not "simple." That's basic.
Capitalism functions primarly on greed.
Prices go up because it is the nature of capitalism to take what ever the market will bear. It is also the nature of capitalism to eat up the compitition....other than restricting the size of any given company, little can be done.....any move the government makes to restrict profit margins or size and scope of a company is going to be labeled "socialistic"...."anti business".......we are watching it now, today.
Every law or government oversight, every federally funded prop within the healthcare system was instituted because of an abuse made by someone or some entity.....
How would you safegard against the abuses then ? Or would it be an honor system ? With our health care at stake ?
My sister still works at a clinic.....a new law has a provision to help hospitals provide cancer meds to low income or uninsured individuals. Her clinic (Huge clinic...all over the state...empty brand new buildings clinic) relicensed facilities to get at the money. CEO's appealing to their baser natures again....they do not NEED the money but capitalism is capitalism...whether it is nonprofit capitalism or not. Is the law wrong for providing for the citizens of this country or are the clinics wrong for taking something merely for the sake of the bottom line ?
Perhaps, for the time being, we should let low income and uninsured people worry about their own cancer meds ? if you haven't "worked hard enough" or chosen the right career...oh well. While those who have the money can get treatment ? That is capitalism.....
This may work with the right to buy a new car, take a vacation, purchase a new home or send the kids to collage but our health care ? Really ?
#53: So many superstitions...
It is also the nature of capitalism to eat up the compitition
This is one of those articles of faith that supports my idea that much economic ignorance is based in historical ignorance. Whatever example you can cook up of a monopoly that ate up its competition is probably an example in which specific government actions made it possible.
Prices go up because it is the nature of capitalism to take what ever the market will bear.
No, that's what happens to prices under a monopoly. Your system charges as much as they can get away with. Without a monopoly, a competitor that can afford to offer a lower price, will because they want to attract business. When a competitor lowers prices, they get something out of it. When a monopoly lowers prices, they don't get anything out of it. With your understanding, the fact that generics are cheaper than brand name drugs would be an utter mystery to you.
Every law or government oversight, every federally funded prop within the healthcare system was instituted because of an abuse made by someone or some entity.....
Good intentions have nothing to do with whether such laws are beneficial.
How would you safegard against the abuses then ?
How do you safeguard against the effects of drinking Drano? I mean... your health is at stake!
When it comes to overcharging, we've already addressed that. And when it comes to safety, only an idiot would actually believe it's in the interest of someone to kill off their customers. Maybe you see the crap that Ted Kennedy and Nixon did with HMO Act of 1973 in which they propped up HMOs that are based upon denying care to their patients and you've decided to blame the specter of capitalism for something the government did, kind of like how faithfully blind Roman Catholics blame the priest abuse scandal on the specter of homosexuality instead of the Church? Lust? Greed? Same dirty misanthropic copout. Instead you want us to be beholden to one big hospital monopoly and the only assurance than we won't be taken advantage of is what? The honor system?
they do not NEED the money but capitalism is capitalism
The government makes a law and you're complaining that it's exploitable?
Is the law wrong for providing for the citizens of this country or are the clinics wrong for taking something merely for the sake of the bottom line ?
Again, you seem unable to distinguish between the intention of a law and the effect of a law. It's a lot like your anti-texting fetish. You don't actually care what the evidence tells you about the effect of a law. You just think your good intentions absolve you of willful ignorance.
While those who have the money can get treatment ? That is capitalism.....
You've never heard of places like St. Jude's? Even with all the money your system is wasting, we still have people donating for charity healthcare. Without your wasteful system, we'd have even more money left over to help pay for important things like children with cancer.
This may work with the right to buy a new car, take a vacation, purchase a new home or send the kids to collage but our health care ? Really ?
Considering that healthcare is so much more important than those petty things, it's even more important that healthcare not be subject to your stupid monopoly. If you want a monopoly on something less important, go right ahead. Revel in your failing monopoly postal service if you like, but stop screwing over the more vital things in life.
"The government makes a law and you're complaining that it's exploitable?"
YES !!! Because we can not live in a society without laws of some sort. When individuals exploit those laws it leads to more laws. Government in not the problem, WE are the problem. Would that we lived in a manner that would make the government useless.....instead we keep acting like idiots and then point a finger at the government and say that "they made me do it" or some such nonsense. Like a thief blaming the victim for leaving her purse where he can reach it. Just stupid and nonproductive !
Since living without government is not an option, you pretty much have condemed us to MORE government by giving individuals a pass, claiming that people are not responsible for exploiting laws or side stepping regulations.....the law and/or regulation is at fault. Easy out !
Please explain the monopoly on healthcare ! I WORKED in healthcare...it is very competative !
The postal service is not a monopoly....hasn't been for a long time....the postal service is "cheap" and thus unable to compete with the bigger companies ....if you need to get something from here to there....there are options other than the postal service.
Forget it.......Lunar......healthcare is a moral issue and should not be money making venture....the fact that it IS a money making venture has nothing to do with government and everything to do with capitalism. WHERE the money goes may be influenced by government but the fact that there is much money to be made is not.
Somewhere in all of these posts is a happy medium. I think some people give others far too much credit as to how they will act when confronted with a situation that has no guidelines or regulations. Coupled with today's attitude that nothing is anyone's fault...this is not productive to any business senerio nor healthy to the public in general.
On the other hand, government can be intrusive and unnecessary. As I see it the trick is to balance the two. To me the logical first step to achieving the balance that is most healthy is for the individuals who make up the society to be responsible for their own actions. Also to be held responsible for the actions taken that may be harmful to the whole.
We continue to do a work around and allow powerful individuals all kinds of abuses and clamp down on the little guy till he shuts up and goes away. The fix can not be in government or lack there of.....it has to be in the interest of the whole and accomplished by the whole.
If we live in a society that prides itself on exploitation.....that is what we are going to have, in everything from healthcare to our government body. No body's fault but our own.
Healthcare is a touchy subject.....most of those involved in the system as patients are there because they have no choice.....they are vunerable. Couple that with an attitude of exploitation....and it makes for a poor outcome. Truly do not believe that government can change our attitudes, nor can the absence of government. We need to be healthcare providers because we see a need and wish to fullfill that need. Of course we need to sustain ourselves but to go into the field to "get rich" is basically using sick people to support your own idea of a grand lifestyle.
If we continue down the current path....we will eventually have a national health care system. There will be no choice in the matter. In the end, I'm sure we will come to the same sad sorry impass, some will believe it is the fault of the "government".....I will fall into a different group, I think we are doing it to ourselves and it is handy to have something to point a finger at, claiming we have no control over the situation.
#55: The postal service is not a monopoly
The USPS has a legal monopoly on first-class mail. It is illegal for others to provide this service and is the reason Lysander Spooner's private mail service was shut down even though they delivered more cheaply than the USPS. I realize this isn't common knowledge, but it is reflective of how uninformed the average person is on thse issues, especially when it comes to people who blame capitalism for everything.
Please explain the monopoly on healthcare ! I WORKED in healthcare...it is very competative !
You have already explained the monopoly on healthcare for me in your inability to tell me who's competing with whom when hospital staff decide to overcharge. Retreating into generalities about "you can't blame everything on government" is evading the issue because I have been specifically addressing issues in healthcare as they are affected by government policy. You can't use that excuse any more than you could use it against someone arguing against government interference in the press or free speech. I don't deny that I'm against government in general, but we're not even discussing that. We've been discussing healthcare.
healthcare is a moral issue and should not be money making venture
Again, intentions are irrelavent. It doesn't matter how high you hold your nose up at the sight of money changing hands. That's a poor excuse for having a monopoly and all the degradations that implies.
I think some people give others far too much credit as to how they will act when confronted with a situation that has no guidelines or regulations.
It's not a question of giving credit. It's an understanding that human behavior differs within a monopoly from what it is without. It's a question of understanding the source of the problem rather than piling on band-aid upon band-aid of similarly flawed interventions.
Round and around !
The devil made me do it ! Not my fault !
We have only ourselves to blame.....if we continue to point the finger, we will not fix it. Eventually we will have a single payer system, it is inevitable.
#58: The devil made me do it !
This is your explanation. Until you can invent away to rewrite human nature, don't bother blaming it. The laws of government, on the other hand, can be rewritten. I mean, it may be extremely difficult to do so given how dysfunctional government is, but in comparison to the laws of human nature, they're a cinch. But rather than admit to the need to change what the government is doing, you just whine about human nature. The problem is at ground level, but you're so emotionally attached to the mud, you'd rather howl at the moon.
We have only ourselves to blame
No, just people like you who refuse to see the effects of monopoly.
Eventually we will have a single payer system, it is inevitable.
Maybe, maybe not. But as a fan of similar monopolistic systems, you can't say that you wouldn't deserve it.
Round and around !
It's not my fault you're unable to say who's competing with whom when hospital staff decide to overcharge.
"The laws of government, on the other hand, can be rewritten."
And the "laws of human nature" will not find a way to circumvent the NEW government laws ?
If the value system of a society is the bottom line....won't make any difference if there are new laws or no laws.
If the primary value of a healthcare system is to generate huge amounts of money rather than promoting a healthy society....it doesn't matter what laws are in place or not in place.
Taken from actual EOB :
Hospital charge for DOS 11/16/11
Insurance allowed amount
Less than half.....
Which is the real number and how is the government involved in this ? Hospital costs, in part, are driven by what insurance will "allow" for a given procedure. You are making this too simple....it is not a simple problem.
This is just insane.....there are no real numbers and having a hospital on every corner would only mean a bunch of empty business buildings which will join the already masses of empty buildings.
This is not a simple fix and eliminating government will not be the solution. Healthcare is not a monopoly, nor are hospitals...they are competative. It doesn't matter what hospitals charge a patient unless that person is uninsured, as it is insurance that is the determining factor as to what a hospital stay warrents..... And how on earth does the government have anything to do with this nonsense.
Agree with you 100% "The problem is at ground level" Our only disagreement is to who constitutes the "ground level." I think the ground level could render government useless if they so desired. Those who blame the government are really handing over a lot of power to that government.
Again, I've worked in hospitals, clinics and for an isurance company... know the government can be intrusive....but I know greed and abuse when I see it. Also able to recognize a copout when I see it.
Why must some people INSIST on personal attack......? have even agreed with you to some extent.....just get nasty. When viewing a discussion from the outside...it has been my experience that people tend to get nasty when they feel they are on shaky ground.
it seems to me that a model of care that rewards carers that are prudent with the patients money is needed. and since insurers are the ones that handle patients money that is the sector to target, Maybe the new law that limits the proportion of insurance fees that it can devote to non medical stuff will help, but still I see little monetary incentive for the insurance company to maximise the care it gets for the dollar.
#60: And the "laws of human nature" will not find a way to circumvent the NEW government laws ?
Never said anything about imposing new laws. Just that we should stop imposing monopolistic systems.
If the value system of a society is the bottom line....won't make any difference if there are new laws or no laws.
Forcing people to be beholden to monopolies may be a reflection of values (albeit of the funhouse mirror kind of reflection), but the corrupting incentives that system creates are unintended consequences, not explicitly held values. Someone like yourself may make all sorts of excuses for having a monopoly (because of your values) while also disliking its effects (which are against your values). It's not a matter of washing your hands of it because you think the people deserve what they get. It's about what changes you're willing to make now that you know that your desire for a monopoly is at odds with your desire to reduce the corruption inherent to that monopoly.
And how on earth does the government have anything to do with this nonsense.
Because they enforce your monopoly. Vituperating on the horrors of having your monopoly-sized hospital facilities on every corner is neither here nor there. You're not even willing to allow just one more competitor without your monopoly's say-so. You can't claim it's not a monopoly while also making excuses for its monopoly status.
Not once have you been able to tell me who's competing against whom when hospital staff decide to overcharge. And then when you deflect by trying to point the finger at insurance companies, you cite a hospital charge that is more than that allowed by insurance while claming it's in the insurance company's power to control how much the hospital charges. It's just one self-contradictory statement after another.
In Wisconsin an Aurora based hospital competes with a Synergy based hospital...who in turn competes with ProHealth based facilities which competes with Bay Shore hospital (no emergency room) which in turn competes with Wisconsin Medical Collage or Froedert Hosp. Few more but can't recall right now.
Healthcare cost and government intervention :
If one works at an Aurora facility....there are several options for healthcare benefits. The most expensive premium is $189 per month. The least is $140 per month....the difference in cost is reflected in the deductable....at $140 per month one has a $5000 deductable, this amount decreases as the price of the premium rises. Most of the doctors at the facility choose the high deductable (paying less into the system) as they can more than afford to pay the deductable out of one paycheck (average doctor pay at facility $1.5 mil per year)
Self employed, and own our business our healthcare premiums are now at $1800 per month with a $5000 dollar deductable per person.
The clinic we use is an Aurora clinic....the community hospital is a Froedert facility. Used to be employeed by this hospital....we no longer can use this facility unless we want to pay for our care , as the Aurora doctors are contracted to the Aurora based facility in a town that is 35 minutes away. Instead of a 10 minute drive (the clinic we use is less than a half mile away from the Froedert hospital) it now takes a half hour to get to the hospital that will cover our care.
Aurora, Froedert and Synergy all have big clinics and/or hosptials with in a one hour drive....these seem to constantly be changing contracts and alliances. Determined on the dictates of insurance companies and compitition between Aurora, Froedert and Synergy....(as I said, there are a few smaller entities but one must be careful and read the small print on one's insurance as they may decide not to cover you if you find yourself at the wrong facility)
The compitition is such that Aurora recently remodeled all of their clinics to include a marble floored lobby with a fountain of some sort in every single facility.....a fountain they eventually had to turn off because they were spreading Legionaire's disease to the patients. The hospitals privatized all rooms and put crown molding in the rooms. Also built twenty two new clinics in areas that have existing clinics....some of these buildings are sitting empty.
A Synergy hospital about a half hour away, had to remodel to compete with the Aurora facilities....was an old hospital but efficient enough. This hospital is in a town called West Bend but since the clinic in West Bend was just bought up by Aurora, the census is down and they are struggling. As far as I know....both Synergy and Aurora have the same government restrictions or lack there of but the compitition is getting rough !
Froedert is putting up a new clinic across from the community hospital I used to work and....about a half a mile from the Aurora clinic where my sister works.....will be equipped to handle emergency situations. Which is going to cut into the emergency room at the hospital ...... maybe the staff can run back and forth so as to keep their jobs ? Pretty sure that both places are not going to be sustainable in such a small area. I'm pretty sure insurance will dictate which facility one can use....
Just explain to me how this makes any sense and how the government is to blame ???
Each and every facility I mentioned is governed by the same government body.
By the way, if you are really really sick or in a horrible accident...you are flown to Froedert Hosp and the Wisconsin Physicians (they are two different entities but work together....makes billing issues really interesting and confuses the heck out of insurance companies who will in turn just deny everything)......the cost is yours to deal with....as insurance is bound to argue over what facility you were taken too. One should be lucid enough to stipulate what one's insurance covers I guess ?
Damn government intervention !!!!!
This topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic.