Oh, for sure: a professional —or highly motivated and skilled amateur. Which does NOT mean that it is not for personal rather than professional reasons.
No offense Toni, but you don't seem to understand that the so called non profit healthcare systems are somewhat of a scam. I'm not saying they don't provide good care, but they make plenty of money.
Studies say that hospitals are the largest individual contributors to US healthcare costs and that Americans spend over $1 trillion a year at hospitals, about a third of the US annual healthcare spending. We saw in our previous We Do the Work report that hospitals were reported to be the 2nd most profitable industry in the US, just behind #1, commercial banking. Hospital systems have been consolidating for years, giving patients fewer choices (in rural areas, pretty much no choice) and hospitals the ability to raise prices at will. Ironically, most of these profitable hospitals are “nonprofits,” a status that comes with huge benefits for hospital executives’ compensation packages and hospitals’ bottom lines, but not for patients and not for hospitals’ frontline workers treating COVID patients.
US hospitals: profit, nonprofit and government-owned/run
The vast majority of US community hospitals (56%) are nonprofits. Only 25% are for-profit (that is, they’re owned by investors just like GM and Walmart and structured to benefit these investors via dividends, appreciating stock prices, and the like). And 19% are owned by state and local governments. The federal government also owns and runs hospitals—for example, the VA system.
In more urban areas like Minneapolis/St. Paul, the major hospitals systems are typically structured as nonprofits as is true of Allina, HealthPartners, M Health Fairview, and the Mayo Clinic.
Nonprofit hospitals as “charities”
Many nonprofit hospitals started life as religious institutions, part of a church or religious order. You’ll see these histories hyped in hospitals’ marketing pieces—how nuns started the first hospital in the 1800s, typically treating working class and indigent patients. The nuns are long gone as are the days of providing free care to the poor and suffering. These hospitals are now profit-generating machines staffed by well-compensated professional administrators with business backgrounds and free-market ideology. They’re often the biggest employer in their cities and generate revenue exceeding that of the local municipal government. (Even so, one big, successful nonprofit hospital system in the Midwest and West continually refers to its system as “our ministry.”)
Nonprofit hospitals are structured as public charities. Their charitable mission is to provide the latest medical technology and affordable healthcare to the communities they serve. Any profits they make (what’s left over after subtracting their expenses from their revenues) are supposed to be invested in their charitable mission. Unlike for-profit hospitals, nonprofits have no investors looking for dividends or an appreciating stock price. That said, both nonprofit and for-profit hospitals are private corporations. They are not publicly owned like government-run hospitals, and the public has no say in how they operate, what they charge, what care they provide, and what they do with their profits.
The benefit of nonprofit status? simple: Nonprofit hospitals don’t pay taxes
Oh, Im extremely aware of how much non-profit medical systems make, how much they are endowed, compensation for their CEO’s, etc. That does not alter the fact that at least for some of such systems. physicians are salaried and in my experience, that absolutely DOES change how the physicians interact with patients. Instead of double and triple booking patients, the appointment time belongs to one patient. Questions are welcomed and relevant information gathered and get this: the doctors remember you. Oh, not some of the surgeons—you know surgeons—but yes: the doctors are actively engaged in conversation with the patients, in an unhurried manner.No offense Toni, but you don't seem to understand that the so called non profit healthcare systems are somewhat of a scam. I'm not saying they don't provide good care, but they make plenty of money.
http://wdtw.org/stories/2020/5/18/are-nonprofit-hospitals-really-nonprofit-answer-no
Studies say that hospitals are the largest individual contributors to US healthcare costs and that Americans spend over $1 trillion a year at hospitals, about a third of the US annual healthcare spending. We saw in our previous We Do the Work report that hospitals were reported to be the 2nd most profitable industry in the US, just behind #1, commercial banking. Hospital systems have been consolidating for years, giving patients fewer choices (in rural areas, pretty much no choice) and hospitals the ability to raise prices at will. Ironically, most of these profitable hospitals are “nonprofits,” a status that comes with huge benefits for hospital executives’ compensation packages and hospitals’ bottom lines, but not for patients and not for hospitals’ frontline workers treating COVID patients.
US hospitals: profit, nonprofit and government-owned/run
The vast majority of US community hospitals (56%) are nonprofits. Only 25% are for-profit (that is, they’re owned by investors just like GM and Walmart and structured to benefit these investors via dividends, appreciating stock prices, and the like). And 19% are owned by state and local governments. The federal government also owns and runs hospitals—for example, the VA system.
In more urban areas like Minneapolis/St. Paul, the major hospitals systems are typically structured as nonprofits as is true of Allina, HealthPartners, M Health Fairview, and the Mayo Clinic.
Nonprofit hospitals as “charities”
Many nonprofit hospitals started life as religious institutions, part of a church or religious order. You’ll see these histories hyped in hospitals’ marketing pieces—how nuns started the first hospital in the 1800s, typically treating working class and indigent patients. The nuns are long gone as are the days of providing free care to the poor and suffering. These hospitals are now profit-generating machines staffed by well-compensated professional administrators with business backgrounds and free-market ideology. They’re often the biggest employer in their cities and generate revenue exceeding that of the local municipal government. (Even so, one big, successful nonprofit hospital system in the Midwest and West continually refers to its system as “our ministry.”)
Nonprofit hospitals are structured as public charities. Their charitable mission is to provide the latest medical technology and affordable healthcare to the communities they serve. Any profits they make (what’s left over after subtracting their expenses from their revenues) are supposed to be invested in their charitable mission. Unlike for-profit hospitals, nonprofits have no investors looking for dividends or an appreciating stock price. That said, both nonprofit and for-profit hospitals are private corporations. They are not publicly owned like government-run hospitals, and the public has no say in how they operate, what they charge, what care they provide, and what they do with their profits.
The benefit of nonprofit status? simple: Nonprofit hospitals don’t pay taxes
I tried to post this earlier but couldn't.
I know quite well that being non-profit is not the same thing as not earning money. They also treat more than a million patients a year.https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mayo-clinics-latest-strong-quarter-172200236.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall
So after expenses, they only made about a measly half a billion. /s Poor Mayo Clinic. I had read about the nonprofit bullshit several years ago and just wanted to explain that nonprofits make plenty of money. Emory is another so called non profit. Anyway, this entire thread is all over the place, so I'd thought I join in.
I tried to post this earlier but couldn't.
And, btw, a lot of corporately owned practices also pay their doctors a salary, and so do many corporate hospitals, at least when it comes to those who work in the hospitals. I've read editorials written by doctors who are disgusted with our current system and who say they are ready for universal health care as they are very overworked in the current system.
I know that when I started working in home health, I worked for a government agency once in SC and once in NC. The work load was reasonable and the care was usually excellent. I was on the UR and QA committee. We didn't push unnecessary care to make money.
About 10 years later, just about all home health agencies became private corporations with profit motivation as the primary goal. The work load was insane and the nurses were expected to drive about 80 or 90 miles per day in addition to visiting a higher number of patients compared to my government jobs. I couldn't do it, so I ended up in QA when we moved to Florida.
I worked in QA for 2 different corporations and the quality of the work really suffered. We had a few good nurses who did a great job, but since at that time, the nurses were paid per visit, we had some nurses who did more than they were able to provide quality care. I remember one of the worst who always took on a large number of visits for the money. One time she did a digoxin level on a patient who was no longer taking that drug. Management didn't like me finding all of the mistakes, but that was my job. I recall over hearing the administrator once saying, "We must maximize profit." I've never worked for a nongovernmental nonprofit agency, so I can't compare it to the profit making ones, but I do know that home health care quality has gone down hill in recent years and there is a large shortage of nurses willing to do the type of work that I once considered my dream job.
This is one more reason why I support some type of publicly supported health care for all. And yes, premiums could be based on income. Part B Medicare already does that although there are only two different levels, unless that has changed. I'm not saying that all government care is excellent. I did some temporary work for a public health department that had poor quality of care, but sometimes it'a a matter of under funding or the person in charge is incompetent. What we have now is a nightmare. It's not going to change anytime soon, but perhaps one day our politicians will come to their senses and realize it's in everyone's best interest to provide care for all.
I know that many countries who have systems like Medicare for all are experiencing problems. I think the solution is to have reasonable copays, and premiums based on income. Plus we spend too much money on aggressive end of life care, which most people don't even want. For example, my mother in law was pushed into having dialysis by her doctor and my bro in law at age 86. She never wanted it and when she had stroke while nearly 90, they wanted her to continue. I talked them into letting her make her own decision. Since the stroke left her unable to speak, I suggested they ask her if she wanted to end dialysis and go on hospice. The way I put it is that she squeezed their hands very tightly when they asked if she wanted to go on hospice. Why not offer some help at home to older adults so they can avoid nursing homes and not receive expensive useless end of life care that does nothing but prolong suffering.
I'm sorry about your mother in law, but it's not your fault what happened, but I'm also disgusted that so many health care providers don't realize that NSAIDS are far more dangerous for older adults compared to narcotics. I had a patient who almost died from taking Meloxicam, and I had to stop taking ibuprofen because it caused bladder bleeds. All I can safely take is hydrocodone without any side effects, but I limit how much I take due to the fact that we all build up a tolerance to just about any pain med if we take it long enough. At least most of my former patients were given narcotics for pain, including the one who almost died from NSAIDS, after her recovery. She was severely mentally ill, but she tolerated the hydrocodone without any side effects.I know quite well that being non-profit is not the same thing as not earning money. They also treat more than a million patients a year.https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mayo-clinics-latest-strong-quarter-172200236.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall
So after expenses, they only made about a measly half a billion. /s Poor Mayo Clinic. I had read about the nonprofit bullshit several years ago and just wanted to explain that nonprofits make plenty of money. Emory is another so called non profit. Anyway, this entire thread is all over the place, so I'd thought I join in.
I tried to post this earlier but couldn't.
And, btw, a lot of corporately owned practices also pay their doctors a salary, and so do many corporate hospitals, at least when it comes to those who work in the hospitals. I've read editorials written by doctors who are disgusted with our current system and who say they are ready for universal health care as they are very overworked in the current system.
I know that when I started working in home health, I worked for a government agency once in SC and once in NC. The work load was reasonable and the care was usually excellent. I was on the UR and QA committee. We didn't push unnecessary care to make money.
About 10 years later, just about all home health agencies became private corporations with profit motivation as the primary goal. The work load was insane and the nurses were expected to drive about 80 or 90 miles per day in addition to visiting a higher number of patients compared to my government jobs. I couldn't do it, so I ended up in QA when we moved to Florida.
I worked in QA for 2 different corporations and the quality of the work really suffered. We had a few good nurses who did a great job, but since at that time, the nurses were paid per visit, we had some nurses who did more than they were able to provide quality care. I remember one of the worst who always took on a large number of visits for the money. One time she did a digoxin level on a patient who was no longer taking that drug. Management didn't like me finding all of the mistakes, but that was my job. I recall over hearing the administrator once saying, "We must maximize profit." I've never worked for a nongovernmental nonprofit agency, so I can't compare it to the profit making ones, but I do know that home health care quality has gone down hill in recent years and there is a large shortage of nurses willing to do the type of work that I once considered my dream job.
This is one more reason why I support some type of publicly supported health care for all. And yes, premiums could be based on income. Part B Medicare already does that although there are only two different levels, unless that has changed. I'm not saying that all government care is excellent. I did some temporary work for a public health department that had poor quality of care, but sometimes it'a a matter of under funding or the person in charge is incompetent. What we have now is a nightmare. It's not going to change anytime soon, but perhaps one day our politicians will come to their senses and realize it's in everyone's best interest to provide care for all.
I know that many countries who have systems like Medicare for all are experiencing problems. I think the solution is to have reasonable copays, and premiums based on income. Plus we spend too much money on aggressive end of life care, which most people don't even want. For example, my mother in law was pushed into having dialysis by her doctor and my bro in law at age 86. She never wanted it and when she had stroke while nearly 90, they wanted her to continue. I talked them into letting her make her own decision. Since the stroke left her unable to speak, I suggested they ask her if she wanted to end dialysis and go on hospice. The way I put it is that she squeezed their hands very tightly when they asked if she wanted to go on hospice. Why not offer some help at home to older adults so they can avoid nursing homes and not receive expensive useless end of life care that does nothing but prolong suffering.
I am also more than a little aware of how much some medical providers push for very aggressive end of life care —and that sometimes families push for aggressive care as well. I’ve been part of some of those decision making situations—and am grateful and surprised given that this was very Baptist country— that the providers for my parents at the end of their lives did not push for aggressive care —and did not stint on the morphine. Unfortunately not the case for my mother in law who suffered horrific chronic pain that the nursing home was unwilling to treat with anything other than ibuprofen or aspirin. I will never forgive myself for not inserting myself more into decisions about her care. She deserved far better than she got—at a minimum, she deserved not to be in agonizing pain.
Health insurance is NOT insurance. Are there any neologists out there? With my health "insurance" the more claims I would make the more money my "insurer" makes. And my premiums don't change. With other insurance I have it is presumed that I am attempting to NOT MAKE CLAIMS because that will result in my premiums increasing because my insurer is losing money. With health insurance there is very little if any incentive to be healthy and to not make claims. Until that changes the system will never work. It's as if having accidents when I drive is good for my auto insurer and has no effect on my premiums.
That’s because health insurance is designed to spread the risks and costs across the entire pool of the insured. There used to be a category of health insurance called high risk health insurance, something my mother was forced to be on after her traumatic brain injury. The premiums were extremely high, although her actual health care needs did not change for many years, until after she was Medicare qualified. So, health insurance companies did used to charge more if they could, for individuals they thought would cost them more in claims.
So do you think people who smoke or are overweight should pay a higher premium for their health insurance compared to someone who does not smoke and is not overweight? I've always maintained that one-size-fits-all is not the way to go. The difference should not be great between the two individuals but there should be a difference, something to talk about at the coffee shop.
Actually, I do NOT think that people who are overweight or who smoke —or who are born with congenital conditions or a genetic predisposition to ( insert health condition/disease) should pay more for health insurance. Again, for those of you who did not get it the first time: health insurance spreads the risk and cost over the entire pool.
Insanity of our insurance system or not, life expectancy in the US is significantly higher than in Russia. Especially for the wealthy. Despite the epidemic of gun violence. Maybe because fewer people in the US die from falling from a window or from deliberate poisoning.
You compensate russian accidental falls statistics with fentanyl 1000 times over.
Not among close associates or rivals of our POTUS.....
Well, associates of Hillary Clinton die too.
Interestingly enough, I think I may have discovered a motive, or at least a cover motive--there may indeed be more personal reasons.
