[Info-vax] Down Again

[John Wallace]

On Aug 8, 11:27 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber... at comcast.net>
wrote:
> David J Dachtera wrote:
> > winstonsmith wrote:
> >> On Aug 8, 3:49 am, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam... at vaxination.ca> wrote:
> >>> David J Dachtera wrote:
> >>>> Your's truly has once again been made "redundant".
> >>> Make sure you don't get too close to a scalpel weilding surgeon, they
> >>> are trained to remove redundant stuff :-)
>
> >>> Sorry to hear about your situation. Out of curiosity, how does the
> >>> business side of hospitals feel about what Obama would like to do to the
> >>> health care system in the USA ? Will it affect them negatively (lower
> >>> revenus) or positively (more customers) ?
> >> They like it, because they were already starting to modernize anyway
> >> and would appreciate the $$$. The $$$ they are spending "comes out of
> >> a separate budget" or that is the excuse why they've frozen salaries,
> >> dropped the retirement plan but still are spending like mad on
> >> building projects and technology.
>
> > You need to understand teh difference between a for-profit and a
> > non-profit hospital.
>
> > The for-profits are in deep spit.
>
> > The non-profits are reaping what they have sown. Some NPO hospitals
> > still have to build/renovate to keep from showing a profit. Others -
> > like my former gig - are taking it on the chin because of their
> > investments. As they lose equity, they lose financial strength overall.
> > So, their cash flow takes a hit as well as the balance sheet.
>
> > Of recent, the business schools prepared students for a boom economy. In
> > the current bust economy, they flounder - badly. This is not unique to
> > healthcare, of course.
>
> > As the question of "what Obama wants to do", you need reframe that. It's
> > what the public wants healthcare to do versus what healthcare management
> > wants to do to the public. Obama is just the advocate for the common
> > American. You've got insurance companies practicing medicine unlicensed,
> > RNs and LPNs second-guessing MD and specialists, and many other manners
> > of greed and evil trying to dictate who gets care and who doesn't, who
> > lives and who doesn't, etc. as a means to please shareholders.
>
> > So long as healthcare includes for-profit entities, evil and greed will
> > continue to rule the day.
>
> Without profits, how do you propose to raise the necessary capital?
>
> An organization that depends on profits for survival manages very
> carefully to ensure that there are profits.
>
> The alternative is to have government owned and operated facilities.
> The government doesn't care if you live or die!  They get their taxes
> either way!
>
> Government also gets to make the rules about who can bring suit for
> damages and who cannot!
>
> A little tale about government and medicine might be instructive.
>
> I take a medication called Metoprolol (Generic) or Toprol-XL (brand
> name).  About a year ago, the company that made Metoprolol screwed up!
> There product was, and is, exactly what it was supposed to be.  Where
> they screwed up was documentation.  For this flaunting of bureaucratic
> requirements, they were required to recall *all* of the Metoprolol in
> circulation.
>
> I don't know when this penance will be complete.  I do know that it's
> costing me two dollars a day for the brand name Toprol-XL.  ISTR that my
> copay on Metoprolol was a small fraction of that; $20-$30 for a 90 day
> supply.
>
> Thank you FDA.  Not!!!!!!!

"An organization that depends on profits for survival manages very
carefully to ensure that there are profits. "

You might want to reword that slightly.

An organization whose senior staff enjoy their bonuses manages very
carefully to ensure that there are bonuses, regardless of the impact
on the rest of us, and regardless of the medium term impact on the
organization. The rest of us, well, who's looking after our
interests... they aren't, that's for sure, even when it's our money
that's paying their bonuses.