Rural hospitals have trouble treating poor; should they just treat fewer of them?

[LogGrad98]

That's not what I'm talking about. I know the formula haha, c'mon man.

If you're spending more, but not making more, it's going to be more difficult to spend more in the future. You'll have tighter margins. Anyways, your profit essentially dictates how much you can spend the following fiscal period. If I make $200K, it means that I can't spend more than $200K unless if I want to go into debt.

So if I notice that I'm spending more, but not making more, I realize that I cannot continue the trend of increasing my expenditures unless if I know that they will make me money. Rarely does one know that something will make them money. Do you get what I'm saying here? I'm not trying to argue, just trying to get my point across. The hospital business is not something I am entirely familiar with (outside of paying their ridiculous bills). I'm just looking at this like a typical business owner.

amazon.com runs on a negative profit growth model. They haven't reported an actual balance sheet profit in more than a handful of quarters since inception. They rely on high revenue and market growth, as well as strong market valuation, to offset the fact that they are not cutting a profit. A company can spend exactly equal to their revenue and still stay in business, and in fact be healthy and strong. So if they bring in more revenue they can pay more out in salaries as long as their other costs are in check (amazon tends to pay higher salaries than the market at almost all levels, with the notable exception of the CEO). If they have other cost issues then increasing revenue will not help increase salaries, but that is seldom a big issue with a company that is being run competently in the first place.

 

[franklin]

This is an interesting topic by itself. Does a hospital need to cut a profit, or should it's aim be to break even? I guess that is a discussion of the morality of profiting from other people's potentially life-threatening medical issues. I am talking about the organization itself operating on a for-profit stand-point, not necessarily from the stand-point of paying competitive wages for the skills of the medical professionals. I think those are 2 separate issues.

Nah, it should break even while paying outside rent seekers like myself a hefty, utility-like ROI. I would make them accept all the illegals tho, tbfh.

 

[franklin]

amazon.com runs on a negative profit growth model. They haven't reported an actual balance sheet profit in more than a handful of quarters since inception. They rely on high revenue and market growth, as well as strong market valuation, to offset the fact that they are not cutting a profit. A company can spend exactly equal to their revenue and still stay in business, and in fact be healthy and strong. So if they bring in more revenue they can pay more out in salaries as long as their other costs are in check (amazon tends to pay higher salaries than the market at almost all levels, with the notable exception of the CEO). If they have other cost issues then increasing revenue will not help increase salaries, but that is seldom a big issue with a company that is being run competently in the first place.

Still? That's quite interesting, actually.

 

[Hantlers]

amazon.com runs on a negative profit growth model. They haven't reported an actual balance sheet profit in more than a handful of quarters since inception. They rely on high revenue and market growth, as well as strong market valuation, to offset the fact that they are not cutting a profit. A company can spend exactly equal to their revenue and still stay in business, and in fact be healthy and strong. So if they bring in more revenue they can pay more out in salaries as long as their other costs are in check (amazon tends to pay higher salaries than the market at almost all levels, with the notable exception of the CEO). If they have other cost issues then increasing revenue will not help increase salaries, but that is seldom a big issue with a company that is being run competently in the first place.

In order to run a business like that, you need a ton of capital. Most companies aren't going to have the capital that Amazon has…plus, we have yet to see how sustainable this is. They also have a phenomenal CEO, and a very large market share for the business they are in. They're currently trying to make that share even larger…so we'll see if they continue with their current model once they get the market share that they want. Anyways, it would be a folly to compare a typical business to Amazon, because Amazon is an outlier that would be incredibly difficult to replicate.

 

[Deleted member 365]

I don't think that treating fewer of them or not letting them in is the right answer, but something does need to be done.

These hospitals do need to make a profit in order to operate.

Why SHOULD a hospital make a profit?

 

[green]

Why SHOULD a hospital make a profit?

For all the same reasons you like to get paid.

 

[Hantlers]

Why SHOULD a hospital make a profit?

Because it's a business? The majority of for-profit businesses like to ya know…make profits. However like One Brow pointed out earlier, there are plenty of non-profit hospitals. So why can't they treat everybody?

The answer is because if they did, there would be a lot less revenue, and a lot more expenses, which would mean sub-standard equipment and doctors. Can you at least understand why that would be a bad thing?

Our entire healthcare system needs to be redone…unfortunately, I don't have an answer on how to do it. It's a very complicated process. I would love for everybody to be treated, but I can also understand why they cannot do that at this point.

 

[One Brow]

In states that accepted the ACA Medicaid expansion, hospitals can and do treat everybody. Georgia put themselves in this position by refusing it.

Also, it is a current federal law that hospitals have to treat everyone. That law didn't just pop up for no reason.

 

[Hantlers]

If I remember correctly, they have to treat them if it's life-threatening, right? Not if they come in with a cold or something.

 

[One Brow]

Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant by "everybody". The hospitals don't have to treat patients without emergency conditions, but they still have to screen them sufficiently to determine if the condition qualifies as an emergency or not.

Here, rather than take the Medicaid expansion, the Georgia governor suggested allowing hospitals to not treat uninsured patients with emergency conditions, presumably. I can't imagine his position is that emergency rooms should refuse to see patients before determining if there is an emergency or not.

 

[babe]

I think you have confused profit with revenue. The more revenue you get, the more you can pay doctors. Pretty much any Catholic hospital or univeristy-owned hospital will be non-profit, but many of them are the best hopsital in their area.

my wife worked for one of those Catholic hospitals.

However, when the government passes laws that essentially mandate people do such-and-so it amounts to a "tax" on those organizations, whether they are for-profit, or not, unless the government also will pay for the mandated services. uhhh...... unless, I mean, some taxpayers are taxed more to pay for those services. . . . .

Before the government passes such laws, charities like the Catholic hospitals could use some sort of discretion of their own in formulating their own decisions about providing charitable service, to the extent their funds would support.

After the government began handing down edicts on protocols and service, even "charitities" had to respond by raising the "price of service" to those who could pay. This means, simply put, that it was another "graduated operating tax" on the hospitals, which all in turn passed those expenses on to their paying patients/responsible parties. The very rich, like my dad, could donate a million to the charity, and save, in his time, six hundred thousand dollars in "income tax", and would thenceforth get some kind of deal on his own services, which proved to be a good deal for him. Made money on it, in effect. I'm sure a lot of other pious liberals with cash cow operations enough to donate to "charities" or political parties, for that matter, also turn a profit in the long run for doing so.

So, in reality, the mandates choked the middle class and made healthcare for them more and more unaffordable. The ACA is doing the same thing. . . . .

to add insult to injury on middle America, letting thirty million non-citizens come in and use those services has reduced Americans to third-world economic realities. . . . .

socialism has always been a thieving business. . . . . always will be.