Republican Response

Post Reply New Topic

It sounds expensive, you can pay around 14 pw = $60/month for basic cover here in Australia. A premium cover is likely to be $120-150/month but covers everything.

the American system is designed from the git-go to be as expensive as possible. profit is the only thing that matters, patients ['cept for the wealthy] be damned. medical costs are first among the leading causes of personal bankruptcies here.

Yes I've heard some horror stories of Australians injured in the United States without hospital cover. In one particular case an Australian woman had to seek a bank loan in Australia to pay off her hospital fees of $30,000 incurred following a car crash. Another story a male had to sell his house to raise the money.

A lot of people find our health system here in Australia relatively cost effective compared to overseas. Having said that I know of a prominent Melbourne lawyer with an autistic teenage daughter who moved to London as she claimed services for kids with autism were far superior to Australia.

You know that factionalism has infected the Republicans when they turn on one of their most conservative and elder leaders, John McCain. I always thought McCain and Barry Goldwater were alike: snarling pit bulls and war hawks.

Barry Goldwater was a thinking man. There has not been a republican since Goldwater. He was savaged by the Prinko Stinko Commie Loving Hate America Progressive Liberals in 1964. I never voted for another major party candidate after that.

LBJ hated America?

I get the impression that England is more "user-friendly" for those on the spectrum than Australia which seems to have more of the bootstrap vibe [like America in that respect] going on in terms of social services.

If nothing else, you can thank LBJ for driving the traditionally democratic South to the GOP.

If nothing else, you can thank LBJ for driving the traditionally democratic South to the GOP.

the American system is designed from the git-go to be as expensive as possible. profit is the only thing that matters, patients ['cept for the wealthy] be damned. medical costs are first among the leading causes of personal bankruptcies here.

You do realize that about 82% of hospitals (charity & Government) in America are not-for-profit?

You do realize that about 82% of hospitals (charity & Government) in America are not-for-profit?

A study this year in The New England Journal of Medicine found that hospitals spent an average of 7.5 percent of their operating costs on charity care and community benefit, based on filings the I.R.S. has required only since 2009. Some spent under 1 percent and others about 20 percent.

What’s more, the I.R.S. allows hospitals to use broad definitions of community service, including the value of traditional charity — care dispensed free or at a discount to those who cannot pay — and the money hospitals calculate they lose because Medicaid reimburses them less than their costs. Hospitals can also take credit for hosting health fairs, operating some research labs and “donating” their executives’ time to serve on local community boards.

. . .

In a case that is being closely watched, Pittsburgh this year filed suit challenging the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s tax-exempt status, saying that the medical center should pay some payroll taxes and more property taxes, estimated to total about $20 million annually.

“Its commitment to charity is dwarfed by its preoccupation with profits,” E. J. Strassburger, the city’s lead lawyer on the case, wrote in a letter to the city solicitor. He said that the hospital failed most, if not all, of Pennsylvania’s criteria for a tax-exempt charity, and that its annual report described it as a “$10 billion global health enterprise,” with excess operating revenue of nearly $1 billion and reserves of more than $3 billion. The institution paid 20 executives more than $1 million annually, he said. Despite a charity policy, the hospital made little effort to take care of poor people except in emergencies, he asserted, spending only about 2 percent of its net patient revenues on charity care.

. . .

“The standard nonprofit hospital doesn’t act like a charity any more than Microsoft does — they also give some stuff away for free,” Professor Colombo said. “Hospitals’ primary purpose is to deliver high quality health care for a fee, and they’re good at that. But don’t try to tell me that’s charity. They price like a business. They make acquisitions like a business. They are businesses.”

. . .

The New England Journal of Medicine study found that religious hospitals provided no more benefit to their communities than nonreligious ones, but that major teaching hospitals provided “somewhat more” — though that tended to come in the form of hard-to-quantify services, rather than direct patient care.

For example, on its 2011 tax form, Johns Hopkins Hospital said it spent about 11 percent of revenues on charity care and community benefit, but only about 2 percent was on free or discounted treatment. More than half was spent on educating health care professionals; it did not take any credit for treating Medicaid patients or research.

By contrast, the Cleveland Clinic said that nearly 14 percent of its revenue was spent on activities that would qualify. But two-thirds of that was for professional education and research, and it did claim credit for its so-called Medicaid shortfall.

“There are many gray areas,” Dr. Young said. “Is there manipulation? Absolutely.”