• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

And so it begins.

That penalty is usually a 1 percent reduction in Medicare reimbursement
Click to expand...
- from the article above

Seems like a good idea to apply some metric to reimbursement rates to offset the "the more we spend, the more we make" mentality.
 
Last edited:
Hire more nurses, and these problems decrease.

Simple solution. More nurses = better care.

But, is better care really worth it?

That might mean slightly less profits for shareholders and administrators, and that's just a slippery slope to socialism, comrades.
 
eskimospy said:
Wait, you think the government paying less to hospitals that give bad care is a bad thing?
Click to expand...

Or to put it another way: Do you think the govt paying less to hospitals that need to improve is a good thing?

I agree with some sort of penalty for poor performers, but recognize that cutting funding is no way to get the improvement we seek. And the latter is the real objective here.

The rule and its application seem terribly simplistic to me. Perhaps it's only that the article mistakenly gives that impression.

Fern
 
Fern said:
Or to put it another way: Do you think the govt paying less to hospitals that need to improve is a good thing?

I agree with some sort of penalty for poor performers, but recognize that cutting funding is no way to get the improvement we seek. And the latter is the real objective here.

The rule and its application seem terribly simplistic to me. Perhaps it's only that the article mistakenly gives that impression.

Fern
Click to expand...

lol what? Lets keep paying poor performers since they suck so bad! The more they suck the more we'll pay!

Isn't pay-per-performance one of the key concepts of No child left behind?

Unless you cut funding, what will motivate them to get better?
 
Fern said:
Or to put it another way: Do you think the govt paying less to hospitals that need to improve is a good thing?

I agree with some sort of penalty for poor performers, but recognize that cutting funding is no way to get the improvement we seek. And the latter is the real objective here.

The rule and its application seem terribly simplistic to me. Perhaps it's only that the article mistakenly gives that impression.

Fern
Click to expand...
Do you think the govt paying more money to hospitals that offer poor performance is a good policy?

Cutting funding by 1% to hospitals is the same as docking someone's salary for doing a piss-poor job.

Hospitals know how to improve care: have adequate nurses. If they want more money, they need to spend more money to provide adequate care. If they don't want to spend the money to provide adequate care, they shouldn't be given the same amount of money as a hospital that does want to spend money to provide adequate care.
 
Let me guess: If low-performing hospitals didn't get penalized, righties would be all over Obamacare for encouraging bad performance. But since low-performance hospitals actually ARE being penalized, righties say "How can these hospitals afford to improve?"

Really, it's laugable.

Edit: Just look a the IRS Obamacare Tax contract thread, where a low-performing contractor is being given another contract. Righties, of course, complain.
 
Last edited:
shira said:
Let me guess: If low-performing hospitals didn't get penalized, righties would be all over Obamacare for encouraging bad performance. But since low-performance hospitals actually ARE being penalized, righties say "How can these hospitals afford to improve?"

Really, it's laugable.

Edit: Just look a the IRS Obamacare Tax contract thread, where a low-performing contractor is being given another contract. Righties, of course, complain.
Click to expand...
Heads I win, tails you lose.

I don't consider the current GOP as conservative. I consider it reactionary.

Anything and everything a librul does is going to destroy America.
 
How about a real thread title next time. -10 for ambiguous thread title.

I think I've seen something similar several times now.

Nothing to see here, later.
 
Last edited:
Fern said:
Or to put it another way: Do you think the govt paying less to hospitals that need to improve is a good thing?

I agree with some sort of penalty for poor performers, but recognize that cutting funding is no way to get the improvement we seek. And the latter is the real objective here.

The rule and its application seem terribly simplistic to me. Perhaps it's only that the article mistakenly gives that impression.

Fern
Click to expand...

Holy carp batman, Fern doesn't believe in accountability it seems.
 
Fern said:
Or to put it another way: Do you think the govt paying less to hospitals that need to improve is a good thing?

I agree with some sort of penalty for poor performers, but recognize that cutting funding is no way to get the improvement we seek. And the latter is the real objective here.

The rule and its application seem terribly simplistic to me. Perhaps it's only that the article mistakenly gives that impression.

Fern
Click to expand...

What sort of alternative would you propose?

i mean things like this seem like just common sense.
 
eskimospy said:
What sort of alternative would you propose?

i mean things like this seem like just common sense.
Click to expand...

Isn't is also common sense that the ability to improve, whether that means hiring nurses or something else, is hampered by decreasing funds?

I'm not suggesting that there be response no for poor performance. I have not heard of this issue before, so I've had no time to give it thought and thus no great suggestions ATM. However, the article makes this seem a very simplistic 'black and white' rule. Perhaps the article mistakenly gives that impression. But I do think we need something a bit more comprehensive than what has been described.

Edit to fix typo. I left out the word "no" underlined above.

Fern
 
Last edited:
Fern said:
Isn't is also common sense that the ability to improve, whether that means hiring nurses or something else, is hampered by decreasing funds?

I'm not suggesting that there be response for poor performance. I have not heard of this issue before, so I've had no time to give it thought and thus no great suggestions ATM. However, the article makes this seem a very simplistic 'black and white' rule. Perhaps the article mistakenly gives that impression. But I do think we need something a bit more comprehensive than what has been described.

Fern
Click to expand...

I have to say I'm amazed that conservatives are arguing for the government to pay the same (or even more!) to hospitals that deliver a poor product.

It's hard to imagine what the government could do other than impose some sort of financial penalty for bad performance. Hospital acquired infections are the very definition of waste in health care.
 
It is hilarious to see a conservative advocate throwing more money at a problem. I'm sure Fern advocates the same solution for public education.
 
Z6P7byj.png
 
Matt1970 said:
Don't we scream bloody murder when it happens to a school?
Click to expand...

New York has routinely cut students (and therefore funding) and closed underperforming schools. This is a good thing. Since the state doesn't own the hospital and can't do that, you enforce accountability through the parts you do control.

I just find it funny that conservatives are arguing against accountability when a lack of accountability is one of their go-to complaints about government. Seems awfully convenient, no?

Let's be honest here. Nothing about the Hated Obamacare can be praised, even if it is something conservatives would otherwise support.
 
eskimospy said:
New York has routinely cut students (and therefore funding) and closed underperforming schools. This is a good thing. Since the state doesn't own the hospital and can't do that, you enforce accountability through the parts you do control.

I just find it funny that conservatives are arguing against accountability when a lack of accountability is one of their go-to complaints about government. Seems awfully convenient, no?

Let's be honest here. Nothing about the Hated Obamacare can be praised, even if it is something conservatives would otherwise support.
Click to expand...

That may very well be but you know there are a lot of Liberals that will never fault Obama for anything including those who would cry a river of tears if dime one is taken away form the education system.
 
Matt1970 said:
That may very well be but you know there are a lot of Liberals that will never fault Obama for anything including those who would cry a river of tears if dime one is taken away form the education system.
Click to expand...

The goal here isn't to take money away from the health care system, it is to eliminate wasteful spending.

Hospital acquired infections are basically the dictionary definition of waste. Not only do they cost a lot of money in needless spending, plenty of people die from them each year. It sucks when the place you go to for care ends up killing you.
 
eskimospy said:
The goal here isn't to take money away from the health care system, it is to eliminate wasteful spending.

Hospital acquired infections are basically the dictionary definition of waste. Not only do they cost a lot of money in needless spending, plenty of people die from them each year. It sucks when the place you go to for care ends up killing you.
Click to expand...

If there is anything I have learned being on this server, it's when to drop out of a debate with you. When you start making connections like funding cuts are to reduce infections which will save money, this is that time.
 
Matt1970 said:
If there is anything I have learned being on this server, it's when to drop out of a debate with you. When you start making connections like funding cuts are to reduce infections which will save money, this is that time.
Click to expand...

Yes, when hospitals face a financial penalty for having excessive hospital acquired infections, they tend to work to lessen those, which saves money because we don't have to treat those hospital acquired infections.

This is econ 101. Guess you skipped that class, huh.

I will remember next time you complain about government spending that you were against even attempting to give hospitals an incentive to cut down on waste. Like I said, it's the Hated Obamacare so you have to be against it. It's a culture war thing.
 
Another day, another thread proving that Republicans are running out of BS to criticize Obamacare with, as more and more their doomsday predictions are just making them look like fools.
 
Uhm, guys, Fern never "advocated" for giving poor hospitals more money. He simply brought up the idea of cutting the funding to a poorly rated hospital may not help them be better. He is saying that if that is the only mechanic behind trying to get better healthcare (to withhold funds from poor performers) then we may be making the problem worse. He never said to give poor performers more money and he even said he hasn't given it enough thought to formulate an answer to the problem. He's only throwing it out there as a possible issue. No need to jump on him or make this out to be some conservative hypocrisy.

I'd think a good way to tackle the problem is to have a group that comes in and does a healthcare audit on the hospital. Give the poor performer a huge list of ways to improve and help them get out of the hole they are in. Require that the money from the penalty go into fixing the problem found in the audit. Seems likes a good start.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top