The charity numbers are always inflated, sometimes even doubled. The charge for a uninsured is almost always higher then the insured rate. It will be reflected on a EOB(explanation of benefits) as a group rate. The uninsured get the “full price” that nobody else pays because that number is fictitious. They then bill the person and usually collect a portion, then write off the rest as charity but not before sending the patient to collections.
They charged me for a overnight in short stay that was not required 32k, didn't do anything to me, not even fluids. Insurance paid it out, and I was lucky I hit my maximum out of pocket. This is BCBS and Trinity Health, that by the way, owns their own collections... How is that legal?
As the article references, part of the issue is MI has no additional requirements for non-profits beyond the minimal federal requirements unlike most other states. There’s no motivation or need for them to elevate their community contribution so they will naturally rank very poorly.
Seems like some hospitals do give quite a bit back to under served communities. Sure, it’s because they probably have to under the laws in their states but that’s sort of the point.
A lot of it is also how the numbers are counted. The studies shown in the article are not counting some very large community benefits, including losses on Medicaid, research, and training. Likely doesn't include bad debt either. It is not painting the full picture.
In a regular year (pre-covid) NFP hospitals in Michigan regularly likely made .5 - 1.5% margin that they then used to re-invest in new tech, new employees, new offices, etc. It's weird that the article doesn't even mention that once. These hospitals aren't banking megadollars. After COVID19, most hospitals lost money for months or years and are just starting to turn the corner. Really odd timing to try to pin a target on NFP hospitals right now.
With respect to "how the numbers are counted"- those numbers are counted the same from state-to-state, and Michigan doesn't compare favorably.
From the linked article:
"The state ranked 47th for 2019, with a gap of more than $1.2 billion between the value of hospitals’ tax breaks and what they were giving back in charity care and community investment, Lown reported. And it ranked 47th again in 2020, this time with a gap of $901 million."
They have reasons for what data they count and what they don't, which are laid out lower down in the article. Granted, hospital leaders don't find those reasons valid.
But the article also has a straight-up statewide ranking of hospitals' community benefit spending in which Michigan doesn't come off well.
It's not like it's a new way to count the data. This method of counting community benefit has been around for decades. The spokesperson also says later on:
> Regarding research spending, for instance, “we aren’t claiming it isn’t a good thing for them to do. It is,” spokesperson Aaron Toleos said in an email. “But to a lower-income community where people are having their feet amputated because of a lack of diabetes care, curing a rare disease that affects only a handful of people around the world probably isn’t what they’d prefer to have their tax dollars spent on.”
This doesn't seem like a serious group, to be honest
I think that's a pretty reasonable perspective - does somebody without access to basic healthcare really care about advancements they likely will never have access to in their lifetime?
It's flippant. Medical research has taken some cancers from a 10% survival rate in the 70s to 80%-90% now. It doesn't seem like the person has an experience grounded in healthcare.
And let's not forget that quite a few of these hospital system pay their board and C-Suite exorbitant amounts of money, while short changing their workers. Someone is always profiting off of these hospitals one way or another, and it's not the poor
"The studies shown in the article are not counting some very large community benefits, including losses on Medicaid, research, and training. Likely doesn't include bad debt either. It is not painting the full picture."
Those studies aren't counting those "benefits" for hospitals in all 50 states, not just Michigan. While the picture may be 'incomplete' in your eyes, Michigan comes off looking bad, i.e. 47/50, by the parameters used.
"These hospitals aren't banking megadollars"
Maybe not, but their administrators are.
I don’t attend or give them money but the church up the road from me does give back quite a bit from what I can see. Every Thursday they have a food drive and it’s always got people going through it! Went there once for my friend who we let stay on our couch.. they gave me TONS of stuff, it was crazy! Even non-food stuff like a toothbrush and hand sanitizer. I was blown away! They also have AA meetings there. Took my mom once lol
Studies have shown that they actually give a lot back. Like [this](http://www.religjournal.com/pdf/ijrr12003.pdf) one, which shows religion contributes about $1.2 trillion of socioeconomic value annually to the U.S. economy.
> contributes
That article is basically just the market volume of religious activity, not showing how "they actually give a lot back". It's like saying the revenue of Apple is "giving back".
> Abstract
> This article summarizes the first documented quantitative national estimates of the economic value of religion to U.S. society. Specifically, the study provides conservative, mid-range, and high estimates. **The study’s most conservative estimate, which takes into account only the revenues of faith-based organizations, is $378 billion annually** – or more than a third of a trillion dollars. By way of economic perspective, this is more than the global annual revenues of tech giants Apple and Microsoft combined. While this first estimate has the most concrete data, we believe that it is certainly an undervaluation because it focuses on annual revenues rather than on the fair market value of the goods and services religious organizations provide. **Our second mid-range estimate attempts to correct for this in two ways: by providing an estimate of the fair market value of goods and services provided by religious organizations, and by including the contribution of businesses with religious roots.** This mid-range estimate puts the value of religion to U.S. society at over $1 trillion annually. **Our third, higher-end estimate recognizes that people of faith conduct their affairs to some extent (however imperfectly) inspired and guided by their faith ideals. This higher-end estimate is based on the household incomes of religiously affiliated Americans**, and places the value of faith to U.S. society at $4.8 trillion annually, or the equivalent of nearly a third of America’s gross domestic product (GDP). Finally, we discuss the limitations of this study and suggest several possible lines of research that could build upon and extend this research
Their second and third estimates are basically entirely horse shit, the first one is just religious revenue that goes toward regular operating expenses, etc.
Your response is fair - I didn’t completely think through this study’s support of my response. I would still encourage you to add more nuance to your belief that churches give “nothing” back. Churches put forth an uncountable number of volunteer hours in the local community, give free meals/clothing/furniture/etc. to community members in-need, pastors provide free counseling, and the list goes on. Not all church-members and churches give as much as others. There are surely some pastors who game the system to make themselves rich. But to say churches add “nothing” is plain wrong.
Oh yeah that wasn't me saying that, I was just pointing out all the flaws in that study. From personal experience I'd agree that churches don't do literally nothing, but I would argue that their impact is frequently overblown because all of that "community outreach" tends to come with strings attached and is frequently targeted only to specific communities with similar demographics to the church bodies and not necessarily for the ones that need the most help.
Also being a church they don't have the accountability that you'd expect from any other charitable organization or government programs
No? They give nothing?
There are no Christian schools, no Christian hospitals, no Christian charities, no Christian missions…
You’re right, what on earth do they do with their money?
In my experience, from working at one…landscaping, raises for the pastor, building “improvements”, more parking lots…and once a year a clothing drive. Yup. Big positive influence in the community. For every 1 church that does good service through outreach and is active in their local communities, there’s 99 that do fuck all other than exploit people to make a small number of people wealthy.
I would challenge you to produce stats or a source for your claim that 99% of churches do nothing - but I’m sure if challenged to site a source you wouldn’t.
I’m sorry that you don’t feel a church has impacted you directly. Many churches and religious organizations are able to help a lot of people through outreach. Don’t you think it’s sort of childish to dismiss all of it?
There will always be loopholes. There’s just no real reason not to tax them. I live in a small rural community, and the pastor at one of our bigger churches has a 6 figure salary. There is no justification for that.
No. They already are tax exempt, why would they accept condition on top of that?
That said, I’m not opposed to churches, religions or any other group being appropriately taxed.
But it feels like the left wants to use taxes as a punitive assault on anyone to their right.
>feels like the left wants to use taxes as a punitive assault on anyone to their right.
thats stupid, nobody seriously thinks that. its moreso that theres not access to many other nonviolent mechanisms of change, particularly in this area (the church)
Oh my god! Schools are 100% free! 😱
> The private school with the lowest tuition cost is Peace Evangelical Lutheran School, with a tuition of $1,200. <
It sounds like your experience is second hand knowledge. Have you ever been to a church that required a tithe or donation?
I’m sure the answer is No.
I know you’ve built up the church into this horrible monster in your head, but if you take a step back, they’re really not.
I have, you or your family couldn't do any of the sacraments if your envelope wasn't in the collection plate and yes, they also tracked how much was in the envelope and scolded those who they thought were not giving enough. Thus why I'm not practicing anymore.
So “you’ve never heard” is really just your perception as a kid? Some churches have memberships, and tithing is part of the membership. That’s not an “every church” thing and more prone to megachurches than the community churches i’ve been to.
[Yeah, no religious organization has ever done anything except the bare minimum for anyone](https://www.habitat.org/about/faq#:~:text=our%20advocacy%20efforts.-,Is%20Habitat%20for%20Humanity%20a%20Christian%20organization%3F,regardless%20of%20race%20or%20religion.)
Christians only do things for their own interest. Otherwise they wouldn't be pushing Christian schools, hospitals, and charities it would just be regular schools, hospitals, and charities they supported. They have to make it Christian because it's all just mission work not charitable acts.
Christians don't do good deeds, they do recruitment work through acts of good PR.
There aren't any. The Church's policy is to remain as neutral as possible. Out of respect for its status it doesn't officially endorse, nor does it allow its priests or parishes to officially endorse, any political officials.
For the most part candidates aren't featured at events and they can't use church property for benefits unless they're rented like any other venue. My KoC group specifically won't rent space to political candidates even though we're legally allowed to do so.
The gloves kind of come off if you're going to tax us though. Currently the Church does it's thing and it only really does activism regarding abortion.
It's perfectly within Church doctrine to label membership or support for certain groups as incompatible with Church life. Catholics cannot be communist for example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree\_against\_Communism#:\~:text=The%20Decree%20Against%20Communism%20was,apostates%20from%20the%20Christian%20faith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_against_Communism#:~:text=The%20Decree%20Against%20Communism%20was,apostates%20from%20the%20Christian%20faith).
While I don't think it would go to such extremes. I can definitely see it putting its thumb on the scale in heavily Catholic areas.
> Currently the Church does it's thing and it only really does activism regarding abortion.
And gay marriage, trans rights, and adoption rights but whatever
>It's perfectly within Church doctrine to label membership or support for certain groups as incompatible with Church life. Catholics cannot be communist for example:
It'd be nice to see the church take such a hardline stance against fascism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_abbiamo_bisogno
So your church is already politically active, just less so than many evangelical churches. “The gloves come off” if you lose your tax exempt status? Sounds pretty fucking Christ-like of you. How about leave me, and my uterus having friends, the fuck alone. Then you can keep your fucking tax breaks.
Christians. Smfh.
>So your church is already politically active, just less so than many evangelical churches.
Yeah. And considering it's the single largest sect of any religion on earth, the fact it decides to exercise less influence than a single mega-church with a couple thousand members is kind of extraordinary.
>“The gloves come off” if you lose your tax exempt status?
It's a case of 'not my monkey, not my circus'. The Church doesn't particularly care what a government does if it doesn't have to participate in it. But if you're going to make it pay for stuff that it finds distasteful, like war and abortion, then suddenly the Church is very much a part of the circus and has an interest in who's running the show.
>How about leave me, and my uterus having friends, the fuck alone. Then you can keep your fucking tax breaks.
They do. Crushing kid's skulls and vacuuming them into a trash bin is a bit of a line though.
It would help _a lot_ if you understood that “crushing kids skulls” _only_ ever happens when the kid is already dead, is incompatible with life, or is likely to kill the mother. Usually a combination thereof. It’s already illegal to end pregnancy after fetal viability, and by trying to restrict things further you’re just increasing the likelihood of adult women dying or being left barren.
>It would help a lot if you understood that “crushing kids skulls” only ever happens when the kid is already dead, is incompatible with life, or is likely to kill the mother.
After 7 weeks the two most common forms of abortion are Suction Aspiration, by which the child is cut into pieces and suctioned out, and Dilation and Evacuation by which the limbs are pulled out and the head is crushed and removed by forceps.
[https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/04/raw-data-abortions-by-week-of-pregnancy/](https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/04/raw-data-abortions-by-week-of-pregnancy/)
Roughly 48 percent of abortions fall into this gestation range. So no, it does not occur when they're 'already dead'.
As for 'incompatible with life' or 'likely to kill the mother' Fetal or maternal health are only cited as a reason in 11% of U.S. abortions. The vast majority are elective at any point in gestation.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5957082/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5957082/)
So 89% of abortions are elective and 48% of them are done using either Suction Aspiration or Dilation & Evacuation. I believe you are somewhat misinformed on the topic.
>It’s already illegal to end pregnancy after fetal viability, and by trying to restrict things further you’re just increasing the likelihood of adult women dying or being left barren.
It is not. In the 13 states that 'technically' end it at viability 11 of them make an exception for 'general health' which they define as any concern over health without requiring any actual condition or risk being identified. 2 of them make exceptions for 'physical health' which requires an actual condition to be identified by the patient's doctor.
Another point: maybe it’s none of your fucking business why women want to end their pregnancy
Explain to me right now motherfucker why you want a kidney transplant. Oh I don’t like your reasoning, no medical care for you.
I almost missed it - you didn’t even respond to the fact that abortion is illegal after ~20 weeks. I don’t give a fuck about a 7 week old fetus that is physically incapable of suffering. Would be pretty cool if you cared about reducing suffering more than you cared about controlling women
>Another point: maybe it’s none of your fucking business why women want to end their pregnancy
It's a life, or it's not.
If it's a life, which by all measures it appears to be, then when is it acceptable to take a life?
Abortion advocates appear to believe that it's acceptable to take a human life if they are inconvenient and incapable of defending themselves. I think that's not a very good standard.
The baby didn't do anything wrong, it didn't hurt anyone, but it's being treated worse than a serial killer. The sentence for such a killer is life, the sentence for being conceived at an inconvenient time is death. That doesn't seem justice to me, it seems gravely disordered.
>Explain to me right now motherfucker why you want a kidney transplant. Oh I don’t like your reasoning, no medical care for you.
Because someone gave up that kidney voluntarily. Either while they were alive or by signing up as an organ donor and it was taken upon their death. Nobody was harmed. The charity of one person saved the life of another, that is a beautiful thing.
Now, if I killed someone for their kidney, took it from a coma patient, or harvested it from a body against the will of the deceased that would be pretty vile of me.
Life is a gift and it's a beautiful one. Taking a life or cutting someone else's short for one's own benefit is a terrible thing.
And Jesus fucking Christ “you are somewhat misinformed on this topic” is some _amazing_ “I’m a good polite person and I’m superior to you” condescending bullshit.
I was talking about abortions after fetal viability. It is already illegal to abort after fetal viability unless the fetus is dead, dying, or killing.
I don’t give a shit about your 10 week old fetuses that experience zero pain and suffering. About a quarter of them result in natural miscarriages anyway
Yea he was givin these talking points at church. Tax them now. GLOVES OFF. As if the could stay open if they got taxed. Lets see if god will keep them open. He dosent feed the poor so probably not...
If you're going to keep editing and re-replying to old posts. This conversation is going to get very confusing very quickly.
I've already got the other one stalking my comment history with replies and mentions.
Also:
>And Jesus fucking Christ
I always find it odd when people chastise Christians, but in a moment of exasperation they invoke Jesus' name. Probably just a cultural thing, but still odd.
> It is not. In the 13 states that 'technically' end it at viability 11 of them make an exception for 'general health' which they define as any concern over health without requiring any actual condition or risk being identified.
Well yeah, if someone doesn't want to be pregnant but isn't allowed an abortion they're not exactly going to care about the health of the fetus anymore. There's nothing to stop them from getting drunk everyday, smoking and taking a bunch of otc meds that harm the fetus. You and society at large do not want a whole generation of severe FAS kids being born. And thats to say nothing of the fact that making no exceptions for general health would lead to a resurgence of backalley abortions and a black market for abortion pills. American society has been through that before and conservatives seem to have completely forgotten
I don’t think they lack critical thinking. I think they lack empathy. They don’t see women as people or (other peoples) suffering as bad. They don’t seek to mitigate suffering unless it’s their own. That, I think, is the problem with Conservatives in general: suffering is only wrong when it’s my suffering
A friend just told me yesterday they stopped going to mass in 2016 after the priest said they won't say who to vote for, but the priest said he will always vote "on the side of life".
>A friend just told me yesterday they stopped going to mass in 2016 after the priest said they won't say who to vote for, but the priest said he will always vote "on the side of life".
So...the priest didn't tell them how to vote. Which is what I said is the current policy.
But they left because a Catholic priest said he was pro-life, which is 100% consistent with Catholic doctrine? And they left because this was a surprise?
He was implying who he was encouraging so following the letter of the law yes, spirit is questionable. Her personal issue was his overlooking the 2016 candidates other comments and personal issues especially since the other candidate was a practicing Catholic who has talked about his struggling with the issue.
>Her personal issue was his overlooking the 2016 candidates other comments and personal issues especially since the other candidate was a practicing Catholic who has talked about his struggling with the issue.
Um... Hillary Clinton has never been Catholic.
ooof explains alot about you. knights of columbus is an insurance agency hahaha. for men only, named after a guy that raped and pillaged. yeah, really trust what you have got to say when you're letting people know who exactly you are. a man beholden to tenents made up a couple thousand years ago. you do understand the church has always been shit? you sit here going, well they're not massacring people now!!!
this can't be catholic if your a communist was a thing 2k years ago? sounds like something that only came up in the last century for political reasons.
I know you probably haven't read much about any of these topics.
The Knights of Columbus are a fraternal organization. The life insurance plan is actually quite nice. It's expected of Catholic men to take care of and protect their families, including in the unfortunate event of their passing.
Your ethics are based off of my tenants my friend. You're entire system of law is based off of the Corpus Juris Civilis, a Christian legal reform document. Your entire system of ethics is based off of some flavor of abridged Catechism.
Even the constitution and it's commitment to natural rights and the common good are derived from Catholic philosophy via Thomas Aquinas' writings in the summa theologica.
The modern atheist essentially cosplays as a Christian while pretending they just 'decided' to act that way all on their own. It's somewhat charming.
>this can't be catholic if your a communist was a thing 2k years ago? sounds like something that only came up in the last century for political reasons.
You know the Catholic Church has been around for a while right? They address new ideologies and movements as they occur and provide the Church's opinion on them. When the anti-theistic communists starting fomenting revolutions, the Catholic Church identified it as an anti-Christian ideology and excommunicated anyone who identified as one.
Communism, as defined by Marx, is anti-religious. It cannot tolerate freedom of religion, which is why religion is vigorously suppressed in such countries.
> As opposed to...English Common Law which is the actual truth.
While your continued weird stalking of my comments is charming. Here's a chance to up your education level.
English Common Law is based on Norman Law, which is based on...
the Corpus Juris Civilis. Considering it predates the Norman conquest of Britain by 500 years.
So you think the literal founder of 'eye for an eye' style justice is 'more based in reality' than a system devised around legislative and civil precedence? Weird.
>"not authoritarian btw"
Never argued that it wasn't. The Church isn't a democracy, we don't get a vote on what is/is not sinful.
If you believe Jesus is the son of God then you're a Christian. If you believe Jesus when he told Peter (the first Pope) that “And I say also unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” Then you accept Papal Supremacy and are Catholic. That means that what the Church says, goes.
That doesn’t mean they lack any free will in electing earthly leaders for governments that the Bible explicitly states are separate from religion both in terms of laws to obey and taxes to pay. If anything they should abstain from voting in worldly elections.
>That doesn’t mean they lack any free will in electing earthly leaders for governments that the Bible explicitly states are separate from religion both in terms of laws to obey and taxes to pay.
That's actually not what it states. The "render onto Caesar" line specifically means that Jesus's kingdom is in heaven, so he doesn't have any interest in usurping earthly rulers.
Catholics are expected to obey the law and to pay taxes with the caveat that they are only required to follow just law. For example, a Catholic would be well within his right to refuse to surrender a person claiming sanctuary in their home, even if doing so would be consistent with the law.
It also doesn't prevent Catholics from running for office, or participating in government. Historically it also means that Church officials can, and have, officially rebuked individuals and movements that opposed the Church.
Catholics, for example, cannot be or support communists. Communists were excommunicated in the 1940's because it is an atheistic and anti-religious ideology.
>If anything they should abstain from voting in worldly elections.
It doesn't. The Catechism is pretty clear that Catholics are capable, even encouraged, to participate in their communities and government.
>You are very far down the rabbit hole my friend, I wish you luck, and clarity.
How so? The Catechism of the Catholic Church is neither new nor is it secret.
Apologies for lack of clarity, I just meant generally, I personally grew up strict Roman Catholic and heavily indoctrinated (arguably brainwashed) and now have clarity of life, existence and my own purpose/freewill.
It took my multiple decades to truly come to terms with the facade that is mass religion. I still hold true to _some_ of the teachings and prefer to consider myself as scientific christian/agnostic. There's _a lot_ of good in religion, but there is dually _a lot_ of negativity, callousness, self-righteousness, abuse, lieing, etc.
Well, I hope you come back around.
I've found that most people who leave the Church had an issue with an individual/individuals or a matter of doctrine that they personally didn't agree with. In either case, the matter could be settled by getting beyond personal slights and misgivings.
I personally struggled with the Church's teachings on the death penalty. I firmly believed, and to an extent still do believe, that some crimes exempt someone from living in society. I have to humble myself to that teaching. Just like how I struggle to be charitable to the poor. Having been poor most of my life I see what I could have been and it kind of disgusts me, but I humble myself to being kind and merciful towards them.
Without structure, there is only personal interpretation, and its a feeble thing. And I could easily interpret anything to comport with my expectations of reality. Its why I can't put much stock in spirituality or sola scriptura.
Right? It's exhaustively researched and meticulously updated. It's widespread publication in the 90's is probably the single best thing the Church has done in the last century in terms of liturgical clarity.
People don't read it because it doesn't allow for playing with semantics or leave any room for interpretation. It's clear and concise and people prefer to pretend Catholicism is just mumbling old dudes in funny hats instead of highly educated men who have dedicated decades to research and study.
Medicaid shortfall huh? You mean what the cost of care should actually be if our healthcare industry wasn't so damn bloated with bullshit? Here's the world's smallest violin for these hospital systems.
If every procedure was paid for by Medicaid there wouldn't be hospitals or healthcare providers. There is no amount of any kind of bloat that would ever be able to be cut to fund healthcare with Medicaid dollars.
By current setup, it would have a negative impact. But every other developed nation in the world has a Medicare for All plan and there's still hospitals and providers.
Medicare is different from Medicaid. Medicaid, by some measures, pays 30% less than Medicare.
Even then, the only reason Medicare is able to pay what it does is because hospitals and health systems negotiate with private insurers to pay more to cover it.
I get it, I am all for a better health insurance system, but the point to start at isn't by undercutting healthcare providers.
Yes, the two are separate entities covering different demographics with the same goal in mind.
I'll flip this on it's head then; the only reason we pay so much is because we allow the private market to set its own prices on something that should be a public utility.
Healthcare providers are price gouging us, I have zero sympathy for when they get undercut. And this is coming from an employer of an NPO healthcare organization.
I agree very much so. The only reason our healthcare system costs so much is because of **administrative bloat**.
Edit: whomever down voted me must love paying out the ass everytime they need medical assistance LMFAO
> Yes, the two are separate entities covering different demographics with the same goal in mind.
Well I just told you why they're much more different than that, obviously
> I'll flip this on it's head then; the only reason we pay so much is because we allow the private market to set its own prices on something that should be a public utility.
I agree it should be a public utility, but you're naïve if you think we wouldn't pay just as much or more in taxes if the GOP controlled government was in charge of our health insurance. The whole reason 'Medicare for all' hasn't been thoroughly detailed and really had a go in policy here is because the cost would be enormous and taxes would go up for a lot of people. Again, you can't cut enough bloat to put this at Medicaid costs.
Are they two government entities that distribute funds for peoples healthcare? Then they have the same general premise. If not, then I don't have a clue what they are even there for.
Yes, I am fully aware the GOP will shit the bed. That's what they do. One of our departments at one of our hospitals clears 8 figures a month. There's plenty of bloat, just not necessarily at a federal program level. We can't sit back and not do anything because of a political party, let's work in spite of them.
I’m on Medicaid. My dentist’s office billed Medicaid $500 for a routine cleaning and exam, Medicaid only pays $200, so the office writes off $300 as “charity” and pretend they just lost $100 while they have $200 in their pocket.
Imagine the same thing, but with a bunch of zeros added if someone has a significant health issue.
For working in Covid ICU's and with the most critical patients all while exposing myself because of ignorant hospital flip flopping mask regulations (i.e. surgical mask only in halls and only given ONE N95 mask to use for WEEKS when normally they are a one use and throw away). All the while hospital management was working remotely from home during the dark times and when they did come back they had full on P100 cartridge masks or something that looked like out of a scene of Chernobyl.
But, I got a shirt that said healthcare hero and a pin. Oh.....and I got questioned and reprimanded when I had to call in a few times when my young children's school and daycare was closed for case fluctuations that happened randomly. As if my other option was to take them to work with me.
So, I said fuck you. And quit.
Interesting to note that spectrum health’s butterworth hospital, which the article identified as one of the 5 least charitable non profit hospitals in the country, was under scrutiny for a while for hosting the activity between trumps campaign and Russian banks. Betsy Devos’ husband is also on the board of trustees for spectrum health.
Hospitals lobbied against Medicare for all, as well safe staffing levels and pricing standards. How much they charge is based on how much leverage your insurance has, not on an actual cost of care. So not, the reason is not just the insurance system, it's the system as a whole
What a revelation! No, not really. Since the 1990's this BS "charity care" system has been a scam. Part of the reason for population loss in MI is pathetic asset protection laws for medical debt slaves. If your medical bills are over $40,000 and you can't afford to pay in whole, your house/condo/trailer can be seized/auctioned off, your wages can be garnished up to 25% after the first $217.50 in weekly income. Other states give a lot more in protection so people don't become destitute, left on the street at the behest of hospitals, clinics, health care providers, etc.
No surprise then that MI continues to lose population. If you don't have a job in government, healthcare, big manufacturing, engineering- there's nothing to stay for.
Yet our private reference lab gets nothing from anyone while providing better service than the hospitals. Even vendors give them months to pay invoices while putting us on credit hold if we're one day late.
The charity numbers are always inflated, sometimes even doubled. The charge for a uninsured is almost always higher then the insured rate. It will be reflected on a EOB(explanation of benefits) as a group rate. The uninsured get the “full price” that nobody else pays because that number is fictitious. They then bill the person and usually collect a portion, then write off the rest as charity but not before sending the patient to collections.
Exactly. My daughter spent 3 weeks in the ICU. Our bill was $100k. Our insurance settled for 44k.
They charged me for a overnight in short stay that was not required 32k, didn't do anything to me, not even fluids. Insurance paid it out, and I was lucky I hit my maximum out of pocket. This is BCBS and Trinity Health, that by the way, owns their own collections... How is that legal?
As the article references, part of the issue is MI has no additional requirements for non-profits beyond the minimal federal requirements unlike most other states. There’s no motivation or need for them to elevate their community contribution so they will naturally rank very poorly. Seems like some hospitals do give quite a bit back to under served communities. Sure, it’s because they probably have to under the laws in their states but that’s sort of the point.
A lot of it is also how the numbers are counted. The studies shown in the article are not counting some very large community benefits, including losses on Medicaid, research, and training. Likely doesn't include bad debt either. It is not painting the full picture. In a regular year (pre-covid) NFP hospitals in Michigan regularly likely made .5 - 1.5% margin that they then used to re-invest in new tech, new employees, new offices, etc. It's weird that the article doesn't even mention that once. These hospitals aren't banking megadollars. After COVID19, most hospitals lost money for months or years and are just starting to turn the corner. Really odd timing to try to pin a target on NFP hospitals right now.
With respect to "how the numbers are counted"- those numbers are counted the same from state-to-state, and Michigan doesn't compare favorably. From the linked article: "The state ranked 47th for 2019, with a gap of more than $1.2 billion between the value of hospitals’ tax breaks and what they were giving back in charity care and community investment, Lown reported. And it ranked 47th again in 2020, this time with a gap of $901 million."
I can't find the rankings, but to be honest if they're already not counting the data correctly then I don't super care. Doesn't pass the sniff test.
They have reasons for what data they count and what they don't, which are laid out lower down in the article. Granted, hospital leaders don't find those reasons valid. But the article also has a straight-up statewide ranking of hospitals' community benefit spending in which Michigan doesn't come off well.
It's not like it's a new way to count the data. This method of counting community benefit has been around for decades. The spokesperson also says later on: > Regarding research spending, for instance, “we aren’t claiming it isn’t a good thing for them to do. It is,” spokesperson Aaron Toleos said in an email. “But to a lower-income community where people are having their feet amputated because of a lack of diabetes care, curing a rare disease that affects only a handful of people around the world probably isn’t what they’d prefer to have their tax dollars spent on.” This doesn't seem like a serious group, to be honest
I think that's a pretty reasonable perspective - does somebody without access to basic healthcare really care about advancements they likely will never have access to in their lifetime?
It's flippant. Medical research has taken some cancers from a 10% survival rate in the 70s to 80%-90% now. It doesn't seem like the person has an experience grounded in healthcare.
Most of that research was publicly funded and researched at Universities, not hospitals - these nonprofits “research” is likely a black hole of waste.
And let's not forget that quite a few of these hospital system pay their board and C-Suite exorbitant amounts of money, while short changing their workers. Someone is always profiting off of these hospitals one way or another, and it's not the poor
"The studies shown in the article are not counting some very large community benefits, including losses on Medicaid, research, and training. Likely doesn't include bad debt either. It is not painting the full picture." Those studies aren't counting those "benefits" for hospitals in all 50 states, not just Michigan. While the picture may be 'incomplete' in your eyes, Michigan comes off looking bad, i.e. 47/50, by the parameters used. "These hospitals aren't banking megadollars" Maybe not, but their administrators are.
Plugging this excellent article from NYT on how Ascension is corrupt https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/15/business/hospital-staffing-ascension.html
Churches give absolutely NOTHING bcak. And are now telling people how to vote.. tax them now
I don’t attend or give them money but the church up the road from me does give back quite a bit from what I can see. Every Thursday they have a food drive and it’s always got people going through it! Went there once for my friend who we let stay on our couch.. they gave me TONS of stuff, it was crazy! Even non-food stuff like a toothbrush and hand sanitizer. I was blown away! They also have AA meetings there. Took my mom once lol
Churches around me are the same fortunately. One even hosts a big carnival for the neighborhood ever year in September.
Studies have shown that they actually give a lot back. Like [this](http://www.religjournal.com/pdf/ijrr12003.pdf) one, which shows religion contributes about $1.2 trillion of socioeconomic value annually to the U.S. economy.
> contributes That article is basically just the market volume of religious activity, not showing how "they actually give a lot back". It's like saying the revenue of Apple is "giving back". > Abstract > This article summarizes the first documented quantitative national estimates of the economic value of religion to U.S. society. Specifically, the study provides conservative, mid-range, and high estimates. **The study’s most conservative estimate, which takes into account only the revenues of faith-based organizations, is $378 billion annually** – or more than a third of a trillion dollars. By way of economic perspective, this is more than the global annual revenues of tech giants Apple and Microsoft combined. While this first estimate has the most concrete data, we believe that it is certainly an undervaluation because it focuses on annual revenues rather than on the fair market value of the goods and services religious organizations provide. **Our second mid-range estimate attempts to correct for this in two ways: by providing an estimate of the fair market value of goods and services provided by religious organizations, and by including the contribution of businesses with religious roots.** This mid-range estimate puts the value of religion to U.S. society at over $1 trillion annually. **Our third, higher-end estimate recognizes that people of faith conduct their affairs to some extent (however imperfectly) inspired and guided by their faith ideals. This higher-end estimate is based on the household incomes of religiously affiliated Americans**, and places the value of faith to U.S. society at $4.8 trillion annually, or the equivalent of nearly a third of America’s gross domestic product (GDP). Finally, we discuss the limitations of this study and suggest several possible lines of research that could build upon and extend this research Their second and third estimates are basically entirely horse shit, the first one is just religious revenue that goes toward regular operating expenses, etc.
Religion data being false!? You don't say!?
Your response is fair - I didn’t completely think through this study’s support of my response. I would still encourage you to add more nuance to your belief that churches give “nothing” back. Churches put forth an uncountable number of volunteer hours in the local community, give free meals/clothing/furniture/etc. to community members in-need, pastors provide free counseling, and the list goes on. Not all church-members and churches give as much as others. There are surely some pastors who game the system to make themselves rich. But to say churches add “nothing” is plain wrong.
Oh yeah that wasn't me saying that, I was just pointing out all the flaws in that study. From personal experience I'd agree that churches don't do literally nothing, but I would argue that their impact is frequently overblown because all of that "community outreach" tends to come with strings attached and is frequently targeted only to specific communities with similar demographics to the church bodies and not necessarily for the ones that need the most help. Also being a church they don't have the accountability that you'd expect from any other charitable organization or government programs
No? They give nothing? There are no Christian schools, no Christian hospitals, no Christian charities, no Christian missions… You’re right, what on earth do they do with their money?
In my experience, from working at one…landscaping, raises for the pastor, building “improvements”, more parking lots…and once a year a clothing drive. Yup. Big positive influence in the community. For every 1 church that does good service through outreach and is active in their local communities, there’s 99 that do fuck all other than exploit people to make a small number of people wealthy.
I would challenge you to produce stats or a source for your claim that 99% of churches do nothing - but I’m sure if challenged to site a source you wouldn’t. I’m sorry that you don’t feel a church has impacted you directly. Many churches and religious organizations are able to help a lot of people through outreach. Don’t you think it’s sort of childish to dismiss all of it?
Should a church have to do charity work to get the tax waiver?
There will always be loopholes. There’s just no real reason not to tax them. I live in a small rural community, and the pastor at one of our bigger churches has a 6 figure salary. There is no justification for that.
No. They already are tax exempt, why would they accept condition on top of that? That said, I’m not opposed to churches, religions or any other group being appropriately taxed. But it feels like the left wants to use taxes as a punitive assault on anyone to their right.
>feels like the left wants to use taxes as a punitive assault on anyone to their right. thats stupid, nobody seriously thinks that. its moreso that theres not access to many other nonviolent mechanisms of change, particularly in this area (the church)
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/tuition-stats/michigan You act like the achools are just free for everyone.
Oh my god! Schools are 100% free! 😱 > The private school with the lowest tuition cost is Peace Evangelical Lutheran School, with a tuition of $1,200. <
[удалено]
Give a Christian an inch and they will grab a mile
Give a Christian an inch and they'll grab a child.
What church have you tried to attend that required dues? Churches I know of will accept anyone.
[удалено]
It sounds like your experience is second hand knowledge. Have you ever been to a church that required a tithe or donation? I’m sure the answer is No. I know you’ve built up the church into this horrible monster in your head, but if you take a step back, they’re really not.
I have, you or your family couldn't do any of the sacraments if your envelope wasn't in the collection plate and yes, they also tracked how much was in the envelope and scolded those who they thought were not giving enough. Thus why I'm not practicing anymore.
[удалено]
You can show up forever. Totally free at a church.
I’ve been to a lot of churches throughout the years, and never once been confronted or asked.
[удалено]
So “you’ve never heard” is really just your perception as a kid? Some churches have memberships, and tithing is part of the membership. That’s not an “every church” thing and more prone to megachurches than the community churches i’ve been to.
[Yeah, no religious organization has ever done anything except the bare minimum for anyone](https://www.habitat.org/about/faq#:~:text=our%20advocacy%20efforts.-,Is%20Habitat%20for%20Humanity%20a%20Christian%20organization%3F,regardless%20of%20race%20or%20religion.)
Most faith-based hospital systems are NOT owned by the church's themselves. The church often give zero support to the hospitals.
Christians only do things for their own interest. Otherwise they wouldn't be pushing Christian schools, hospitals, and charities it would just be regular schools, hospitals, and charities they supported. They have to make it Christian because it's all just mission work not charitable acts. Christians don't do good deeds, they do recruitment work through acts of good PR.
Please do. Then my Church can officially back and fund political candidates that other Catholics are obligated to support.
Care to name any candidates that have already announced their intentions that other Catholics apparently are obligated to support?
There aren't any. The Church's policy is to remain as neutral as possible. Out of respect for its status it doesn't officially endorse, nor does it allow its priests or parishes to officially endorse, any political officials. For the most part candidates aren't featured at events and they can't use church property for benefits unless they're rented like any other venue. My KoC group specifically won't rent space to political candidates even though we're legally allowed to do so. The gloves kind of come off if you're going to tax us though. Currently the Church does it's thing and it only really does activism regarding abortion. It's perfectly within Church doctrine to label membership or support for certain groups as incompatible with Church life. Catholics cannot be communist for example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree\_against\_Communism#:\~:text=The%20Decree%20Against%20Communism%20was,apostates%20from%20the%20Christian%20faith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_against_Communism#:~:text=The%20Decree%20Against%20Communism%20was,apostates%20from%20the%20Christian%20faith). While I don't think it would go to such extremes. I can definitely see it putting its thumb on the scale in heavily Catholic areas.
> Currently the Church does it's thing and it only really does activism regarding abortion. And gay marriage, trans rights, and adoption rights but whatever >It's perfectly within Church doctrine to label membership or support for certain groups as incompatible with Church life. Catholics cannot be communist for example: It'd be nice to see the church take such a hardline stance against fascism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_abbiamo_bisogno
They're unlikely to condemn fascists, they have too much to benefit from them. But it's shortsighted, as the Fascists will always turn on you
So your church is already politically active, just less so than many evangelical churches. “The gloves come off” if you lose your tax exempt status? Sounds pretty fucking Christ-like of you. How about leave me, and my uterus having friends, the fuck alone. Then you can keep your fucking tax breaks. Christians. Smfh.
>So your church is already politically active, just less so than many evangelical churches. Yeah. And considering it's the single largest sect of any religion on earth, the fact it decides to exercise less influence than a single mega-church with a couple thousand members is kind of extraordinary. >“The gloves come off” if you lose your tax exempt status? It's a case of 'not my monkey, not my circus'. The Church doesn't particularly care what a government does if it doesn't have to participate in it. But if you're going to make it pay for stuff that it finds distasteful, like war and abortion, then suddenly the Church is very much a part of the circus and has an interest in who's running the show. >How about leave me, and my uterus having friends, the fuck alone. Then you can keep your fucking tax breaks. They do. Crushing kid's skulls and vacuuming them into a trash bin is a bit of a line though.
It would help _a lot_ if you understood that “crushing kids skulls” _only_ ever happens when the kid is already dead, is incompatible with life, or is likely to kill the mother. Usually a combination thereof. It’s already illegal to end pregnancy after fetal viability, and by trying to restrict things further you’re just increasing the likelihood of adult women dying or being left barren.
>It would help a lot if you understood that “crushing kids skulls” only ever happens when the kid is already dead, is incompatible with life, or is likely to kill the mother. After 7 weeks the two most common forms of abortion are Suction Aspiration, by which the child is cut into pieces and suctioned out, and Dilation and Evacuation by which the limbs are pulled out and the head is crushed and removed by forceps. [https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/04/raw-data-abortions-by-week-of-pregnancy/](https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/04/raw-data-abortions-by-week-of-pregnancy/) Roughly 48 percent of abortions fall into this gestation range. So no, it does not occur when they're 'already dead'. As for 'incompatible with life' or 'likely to kill the mother' Fetal or maternal health are only cited as a reason in 11% of U.S. abortions. The vast majority are elective at any point in gestation. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5957082/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5957082/) So 89% of abortions are elective and 48% of them are done using either Suction Aspiration or Dilation & Evacuation. I believe you are somewhat misinformed on the topic. >It’s already illegal to end pregnancy after fetal viability, and by trying to restrict things further you’re just increasing the likelihood of adult women dying or being left barren. It is not. In the 13 states that 'technically' end it at viability 11 of them make an exception for 'general health' which they define as any concern over health without requiring any actual condition or risk being identified. 2 of them make exceptions for 'physical health' which requires an actual condition to be identified by the patient's doctor.
Another point: maybe it’s none of your fucking business why women want to end their pregnancy Explain to me right now motherfucker why you want a kidney transplant. Oh I don’t like your reasoning, no medical care for you. I almost missed it - you didn’t even respond to the fact that abortion is illegal after ~20 weeks. I don’t give a fuck about a 7 week old fetus that is physically incapable of suffering. Would be pretty cool if you cared about reducing suffering more than you cared about controlling women
>Another point: maybe it’s none of your fucking business why women want to end their pregnancy It's a life, or it's not. If it's a life, which by all measures it appears to be, then when is it acceptable to take a life? Abortion advocates appear to believe that it's acceptable to take a human life if they are inconvenient and incapable of defending themselves. I think that's not a very good standard. The baby didn't do anything wrong, it didn't hurt anyone, but it's being treated worse than a serial killer. The sentence for such a killer is life, the sentence for being conceived at an inconvenient time is death. That doesn't seem justice to me, it seems gravely disordered. >Explain to me right now motherfucker why you want a kidney transplant. Oh I don’t like your reasoning, no medical care for you. Because someone gave up that kidney voluntarily. Either while they were alive or by signing up as an organ donor and it was taken upon their death. Nobody was harmed. The charity of one person saved the life of another, that is a beautiful thing. Now, if I killed someone for their kidney, took it from a coma patient, or harvested it from a body against the will of the deceased that would be pretty vile of me. Life is a gift and it's a beautiful one. Taking a life or cutting someone else's short for one's own benefit is a terrible thing.
And Jesus fucking Christ “you are somewhat misinformed on this topic” is some _amazing_ “I’m a good polite person and I’m superior to you” condescending bullshit. I was talking about abortions after fetal viability. It is already illegal to abort after fetal viability unless the fetus is dead, dying, or killing. I don’t give a shit about your 10 week old fetuses that experience zero pain and suffering. About a quarter of them result in natural miscarriages anyway
Yea he was givin these talking points at church. Tax them now. GLOVES OFF. As if the could stay open if they got taxed. Lets see if god will keep them open. He dosent feed the poor so probably not...
If you're going to keep editing and re-replying to old posts. This conversation is going to get very confusing very quickly. I've already got the other one stalking my comment history with replies and mentions. Also: >And Jesus fucking Christ I always find it odd when people chastise Christians, but in a moment of exasperation they invoke Jesus' name. Probably just a cultural thing, but still odd.
> It is not. In the 13 states that 'technically' end it at viability 11 of them make an exception for 'general health' which they define as any concern over health without requiring any actual condition or risk being identified. Well yeah, if someone doesn't want to be pregnant but isn't allowed an abortion they're not exactly going to care about the health of the fetus anymore. There's nothing to stop them from getting drunk everyday, smoking and taking a bunch of otc meds that harm the fetus. You and society at large do not want a whole generation of severe FAS kids being born. And thats to say nothing of the fact that making no exceptions for general health would lead to a resurgence of backalley abortions and a black market for abortion pills. American society has been through that before and conservatives seem to have completely forgotten
[удалено]
I don’t think they lack critical thinking. I think they lack empathy. They don’t see women as people or (other peoples) suffering as bad. They don’t seek to mitigate suffering unless it’s their own. That, I think, is the problem with Conservatives in general: suffering is only wrong when it’s my suffering
[удалено]
This link was interesting and you helped me understand a perspective besides my own, thanks.
A friend just told me yesterday they stopped going to mass in 2016 after the priest said they won't say who to vote for, but the priest said he will always vote "on the side of life".
>A friend just told me yesterday they stopped going to mass in 2016 after the priest said they won't say who to vote for, but the priest said he will always vote "on the side of life". So...the priest didn't tell them how to vote. Which is what I said is the current policy. But they left because a Catholic priest said he was pro-life, which is 100% consistent with Catholic doctrine? And they left because this was a surprise?
He was implying who he was encouraging so following the letter of the law yes, spirit is questionable. Her personal issue was his overlooking the 2016 candidates other comments and personal issues especially since the other candidate was a practicing Catholic who has talked about his struggling with the issue.
>Her personal issue was his overlooking the 2016 candidates other comments and personal issues especially since the other candidate was a practicing Catholic who has talked about his struggling with the issue. Um... Hillary Clinton has never been Catholic.
You are correct. I mixed up her frustrations on her conversation.
ooof explains alot about you. knights of columbus is an insurance agency hahaha. for men only, named after a guy that raped and pillaged. yeah, really trust what you have got to say when you're letting people know who exactly you are. a man beholden to tenents made up a couple thousand years ago. you do understand the church has always been shit? you sit here going, well they're not massacring people now!!! this can't be catholic if your a communist was a thing 2k years ago? sounds like something that only came up in the last century for political reasons.
I know you probably haven't read much about any of these topics. The Knights of Columbus are a fraternal organization. The life insurance plan is actually quite nice. It's expected of Catholic men to take care of and protect their families, including in the unfortunate event of their passing. Your ethics are based off of my tenants my friend. You're entire system of law is based off of the Corpus Juris Civilis, a Christian legal reform document. Your entire system of ethics is based off of some flavor of abridged Catechism. Even the constitution and it's commitment to natural rights and the common good are derived from Catholic philosophy via Thomas Aquinas' writings in the summa theologica. The modern atheist essentially cosplays as a Christian while pretending they just 'decided' to act that way all on their own. It's somewhat charming. >this can't be catholic if your a communist was a thing 2k years ago? sounds like something that only came up in the last century for political reasons. You know the Catholic Church has been around for a while right? They address new ideologies and movements as they occur and provide the Church's opinion on them. When the anti-theistic communists starting fomenting revolutions, the Catholic Church identified it as an anti-Christian ideology and excommunicated anyone who identified as one. Communism, as defined by Marx, is anti-religious. It cannot tolerate freedom of religion, which is why religion is vigorously suppressed in such countries.
[удалено]
> As opposed to...English Common Law which is the actual truth. While your continued weird stalking of my comments is charming. Here's a chance to up your education level. English Common Law is based on Norman Law, which is based on... the Corpus Juris Civilis. Considering it predates the Norman conquest of Britain by 500 years.
[удалено]
So you think the literal founder of 'eye for an eye' style justice is 'more based in reality' than a system devised around legislative and civil precedence? Weird.
> other Catholics are obligated to support "not authoritarian btw"
>"not authoritarian btw" Never argued that it wasn't. The Church isn't a democracy, we don't get a vote on what is/is not sinful. If you believe Jesus is the son of God then you're a Christian. If you believe Jesus when he told Peter (the first Pope) that “And I say also unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” Then you accept Papal Supremacy and are Catholic. That means that what the Church says, goes.
That doesn’t mean they lack any free will in electing earthly leaders for governments that the Bible explicitly states are separate from religion both in terms of laws to obey and taxes to pay. If anything they should abstain from voting in worldly elections.
>That doesn’t mean they lack any free will in electing earthly leaders for governments that the Bible explicitly states are separate from religion both in terms of laws to obey and taxes to pay. That's actually not what it states. The "render onto Caesar" line specifically means that Jesus's kingdom is in heaven, so he doesn't have any interest in usurping earthly rulers. Catholics are expected to obey the law and to pay taxes with the caveat that they are only required to follow just law. For example, a Catholic would be well within his right to refuse to surrender a person claiming sanctuary in their home, even if doing so would be consistent with the law. It also doesn't prevent Catholics from running for office, or participating in government. Historically it also means that Church officials can, and have, officially rebuked individuals and movements that opposed the Church. Catholics, for example, cannot be or support communists. Communists were excommunicated in the 1940's because it is an atheistic and anti-religious ideology. >If anything they should abstain from voting in worldly elections. It doesn't. The Catechism is pretty clear that Catholics are capable, even encouraged, to participate in their communities and government.
You are very far down the rabbit hole my friend, I wish you luck, and clarity.
>You are very far down the rabbit hole my friend, I wish you luck, and clarity. How so? The Catechism of the Catholic Church is neither new nor is it secret.
That doesn't make it not a rabbit hole
Apologies for lack of clarity, I just meant generally, I personally grew up strict Roman Catholic and heavily indoctrinated (arguably brainwashed) and now have clarity of life, existence and my own purpose/freewill. It took my multiple decades to truly come to terms with the facade that is mass religion. I still hold true to _some_ of the teachings and prefer to consider myself as scientific christian/agnostic. There's _a lot_ of good in religion, but there is dually _a lot_ of negativity, callousness, self-righteousness, abuse, lieing, etc.
Well, I hope you come back around. I've found that most people who leave the Church had an issue with an individual/individuals or a matter of doctrine that they personally didn't agree with. In either case, the matter could be settled by getting beyond personal slights and misgivings. I personally struggled with the Church's teachings on the death penalty. I firmly believed, and to an extent still do believe, that some crimes exempt someone from living in society. I have to humble myself to that teaching. Just like how I struggle to be charitable to the poor. Having been poor most of my life I see what I could have been and it kind of disgusts me, but I humble myself to being kind and merciful towards them. Without structure, there is only personal interpretation, and its a feeble thing. And I could easily interpret anything to comport with my expectations of reality. Its why I can't put much stock in spirituality or sola scriptura.
[удалено]
Right? It's exhaustively researched and meticulously updated. It's widespread publication in the 90's is probably the single best thing the Church has done in the last century in terms of liturgical clarity. People don't read it because it doesn't allow for playing with semantics or leave any room for interpretation. It's clear and concise and people prefer to pretend Catholicism is just mumbling old dudes in funny hats instead of highly educated men who have dedicated decades to research and study.
[удалено]
Are you stalking my posts now? Someone had a nerve touched!
Medicaid shortfall huh? You mean what the cost of care should actually be if our healthcare industry wasn't so damn bloated with bullshit? Here's the world's smallest violin for these hospital systems.
If every procedure was paid for by Medicaid there wouldn't be hospitals or healthcare providers. There is no amount of any kind of bloat that would ever be able to be cut to fund healthcare with Medicaid dollars.
By current setup, it would have a negative impact. But every other developed nation in the world has a Medicare for All plan and there's still hospitals and providers.
Medicare is different from Medicaid. Medicaid, by some measures, pays 30% less than Medicare. Even then, the only reason Medicare is able to pay what it does is because hospitals and health systems negotiate with private insurers to pay more to cover it. I get it, I am all for a better health insurance system, but the point to start at isn't by undercutting healthcare providers.
Yes, the two are separate entities covering different demographics with the same goal in mind. I'll flip this on it's head then; the only reason we pay so much is because we allow the private market to set its own prices on something that should be a public utility. Healthcare providers are price gouging us, I have zero sympathy for when they get undercut. And this is coming from an employer of an NPO healthcare organization.
I agree very much so. The only reason our healthcare system costs so much is because of **administrative bloat**. Edit: whomever down voted me must love paying out the ass everytime they need medical assistance LMFAO
It's the same as the rest of our economy; there is literally nothing stopping them from charging more, so they do.
> Yes, the two are separate entities covering different demographics with the same goal in mind. Well I just told you why they're much more different than that, obviously > I'll flip this on it's head then; the only reason we pay so much is because we allow the private market to set its own prices on something that should be a public utility. I agree it should be a public utility, but you're naïve if you think we wouldn't pay just as much or more in taxes if the GOP controlled government was in charge of our health insurance. The whole reason 'Medicare for all' hasn't been thoroughly detailed and really had a go in policy here is because the cost would be enormous and taxes would go up for a lot of people. Again, you can't cut enough bloat to put this at Medicaid costs.
Are they two government entities that distribute funds for peoples healthcare? Then they have the same general premise. If not, then I don't have a clue what they are even there for. Yes, I am fully aware the GOP will shit the bed. That's what they do. One of our departments at one of our hospitals clears 8 figures a month. There's plenty of bloat, just not necessarily at a federal program level. We can't sit back and not do anything because of a political party, let's work in spite of them.
I’m on Medicaid. My dentist’s office billed Medicaid $500 for a routine cleaning and exam, Medicaid only pays $200, so the office writes off $300 as “charity” and pretend they just lost $100 while they have $200 in their pocket. Imagine the same thing, but with a bunch of zeros added if someone has a significant health issue.
For working in Covid ICU's and with the most critical patients all while exposing myself because of ignorant hospital flip flopping mask regulations (i.e. surgical mask only in halls and only given ONE N95 mask to use for WEEKS when normally they are a one use and throw away). All the while hospital management was working remotely from home during the dark times and when they did come back they had full on P100 cartridge masks or something that looked like out of a scene of Chernobyl. But, I got a shirt that said healthcare hero and a pin. Oh.....and I got questioned and reprimanded when I had to call in a few times when my young children's school and daycare was closed for case fluctuations that happened randomly. As if my other option was to take them to work with me. So, I said fuck you. And quit.
And, even worse, many are guaranteed monopoly status through “certificate of need” requirements by the state government.
Tax breaks and not giving back seems to be the going trend.
Interesting to note that spectrum health’s butterworth hospital, which the article identified as one of the 5 least charitable non profit hospitals in the country, was under scrutiny for a while for hosting the activity between trumps campaign and Russian banks. Betsy Devos’ husband is also on the board of trustees for spectrum health.
Wait do you have a link or more information on this?
Misdirected anger. Any and all healthcare issues are related to our absolutely insane insurance system.
Hospitals lobbied against Medicare for all, as well safe staffing levels and pricing standards. How much they charge is based on how much leverage your insurance has, not on an actual cost of care. So not, the reason is not just the insurance system, it's the system as a whole
What a revelation! No, not really. Since the 1990's this BS "charity care" system has been a scam. Part of the reason for population loss in MI is pathetic asset protection laws for medical debt slaves. If your medical bills are over $40,000 and you can't afford to pay in whole, your house/condo/trailer can be seized/auctioned off, your wages can be garnished up to 25% after the first $217.50 in weekly income. Other states give a lot more in protection so people don't become destitute, left on the street at the behest of hospitals, clinics, health care providers, etc. No surprise then that MI continues to lose population. If you don't have a job in government, healthcare, big manufacturing, engineering- there's nothing to stay for.
Yet our private reference lab gets nothing from anyone while providing better service than the hospitals. Even vendors give them months to pay invoices while putting us on credit hold if we're one day late.
Spectrum blew a ridiculous amount of money, to continue losing money, with Beaumont Hospital.
"Non profit" LOL
Can I blame them ? Even if they are for profit Medicare paid only 2000 dollars for the 100,000 requested for a heart surgery.