Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I'm not sure why you're talking about rural hospitals? Ours are inner city Philadelphia, in the poorest section of town.

To answer your question, about 55% of our Medicaid patients are emergency, 30% are maternity, and the rest elective.

The point isn't that we shouldn't have to take care of them. The point is without the Disproportionate Share payments, there won't be a hospital anymore. Our University can't afford to subsidize losses as massive as this would generate.

Based on your response, which was pretty confusing, I'm not sure you fully understand. My point is we're already a government hospital in a lot of respects. We get an $80 million lump sum payment annually from the government just to keep us in business. We need to keep getting that government payment or we'll go out of business.

Being run by the government won't solve anything. Believe me, our management has us running lean and mean, our staffing levels are low. A takeover by government management would not yield any expense reductions. We don't need to be run by the government, we just need to be propped up by the government.

That is if you want poor people to have any healthcare at all. That's reality.

My sentiments also applies to urban hospitals. I understand the problem fully, we have this bastardized hybrid system where hospitals are "basically government hospitals" when they aught to be "fully taxpayer funded government hospitals."


Let me ask you this, are there any type of savings having universal healthcare would yield? I know the AHA was all for saving taxpayers 155 billion no too long ago if 95% of Americans were coverage.