Comments on: BUSH BOMBS AMERICA’S HOSPITALS

By: Matt Horn

Matt Horn — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:09:34 +0000

mnjam, if it is so important to you , why not move to one of those wonderful progressive countries that is so much better than the US? That is what almost our ancestors did when they came here. But no, it is more convienient to destroy a system that works at least as well as any socialized system in the world. Maybe you should provide source material for you assertions. There are many for mine, including the Joint Commission, HEDIS, data from the Ambulatory Quality Alliance, etc.

By: mnjam

mnjam — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 02:35:30 +0000

BS is exactly what this piece is.

We have the worst healthcare system in th developed world. Twice the cost of others +terrible quality of care. It’s a national disaster and a national disgrace. If I were ever seriously ill, I would seek treatment somewhere else.

Maybe it should be destroyed.

By: Nurse K

Nurse K — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 08:47:00 +0000

Our medicine units always work short because their budget is so tight and they never approve anyone for doubles, for instance. Why is their budget so tight? They never make money. Why don’t they ever make money? Most of the patients who are on medicine are the chronically ill elderly on Medicare. They’re really sick with a UTi or a cellulitis or a non-healing diabetic foot ulcer, but–yawn–they don’t need a heart cath or some other better-reimbursed procedure, so the nurses must work short so they don’t go too far over-budget. You can only lose so much money.

By: Rich

Rich — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 21:51:50 +0000

Marc,

Costs in the hospital are not the problem. Fortunately, the hospital has access to the free market to address cost issues, and can negotiate prices, contracts and so forth to reduce costs.

The problem is reimbursement scheme that is implemented without regard to those costs, and no mechanism for negotiating the reimbursement.

By: Catron

Catron — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 21:20:17 +0000

There’s a difference between “privatizing” and “abolishing.”

By: Marc Brown

Marc Brown — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 20:55:14 +0000

‘The answer is to privatize the whole system thus allowing the market to work.’

That’s funny - I could have sworn it was a certain D Catron who said that if you advocated abolishing Medicare you were in whack-job land, or words to that effect.

By: Matt Horn

Matt Horn — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:28:58 +0000

Or it could indicate that since medicare is so inefficiently run, it would be folly to give the government more control.

By: Catron

Catron — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:24:05 +0000

“The only answer is to increase the budget by diverting funds from elsewhere or raising taxes.”

Nope. The answer is to privatize the whole system thus allowing the market to work. As the Part-D experience demonstrates, that would control costs without forcing providers out of business.

By: Marc Brown

Marc Brown — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:45:57 +0000

So - as you don’t want to scrap Medicare, presumanly the only answer is to increase the budget by diverting funds from elsewhere or raising taxes. It would also be useful to see a comparison between the cost of running a typical hospital with an equivalent one in France or the UK.

By: Catron

Catron — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:27:00 +0000

Unfortunately, Medicare has cut its payments to primary care physicians to the extent that many rural areas (which tend to be very Medicare/Medicaid heavy) have no private alternative to the community hospital.

So, when the hospital is forced to shut down, the patients have no place to access health care. For example, there is a county near my home that has no hospital or PCP at all—zero.

This a phenomenon that occurs with increasing frequency, and it is the direct result of government price controls.