He's a buffoon.The Tator has thrown down the gauntlet
View attachment 567502
Maybe their costs are out of line?Medicaid reimbursement to providers does not cover the baseline cost of care in most cases.
lol, nice. Medicaid reimburses physicians at less than 30% of bcbs rates, at 90% of Medicare rates and at rates that have steadily dropped for the past few years, while inflation goes up.Maybe their costs are out of line?
That's not a valid comparison at all. Jesus was talking about charity, not taxation and government spending. That said, Tate is on the wrong side of this again. We should have done it 10 years ago.The Bible - "Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."
Tate Reeves - "Can't use our tax money to pay for the poor! No handouts for "these" people."
What a great example he is to us all.
So some deals don't make as much money as others? You run into that on these big jobs.lol, nice. Medicaid reimburses physicians at less than 30% of bcbs rates, at 90% of Medicare rates and at rates that have steadily dropped for the past few years, while inflation goes up.
Doctors make too much money*. Let’s give medical insurance to more people but underfund it*.
That's not really a meaningful statement. It doesn't cover the average cost of care because it's the lowest paying of the three major sources (i.e., Private insurance, medicare, and Medicaid). Providers are always going to negotiate salaries that reflect a blend of the rates they receive, and Medicaid is therefore always going to be lower than the average cost of providing service. The question would be whether it pays enough to cover overhead and then some, which it presumably does.Medicaid reimbursement to providers does not cover the baseline cost of care in most cases.
Agreeing that other people are going to pay for things has nothing to do with Christian obligations or morals. It may be good policy, it may not be. I personally am for expansion but if anything, I'm probably for expansion because of moral flexibility and my willingness to go along with bad policy provided I am not the one primarily paying for it.The Bible - "Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."
Tate Reeves - "Can't use our tax money to pay for the poor! No handouts for "these" people."
What a great example he is to us all.
I'm not one to argue theology, but there is ample space for context in this passage (Matthew 25:40). It certainly doesn't tell us it is specifically about charity. See Proverbs 14:31That's not a valid comparison at all. Jesus was talking about charity, not taxation and government spending.
It does not in most cases. That is what I meant.i The question would be whether it pays enough to cover overhead and then some, which it presumably does.
It would do little if anything to improve the plight of rural hospitals. There is a possibility it would make things worse.If we had joined in at the beginning this State would be over $2 billion better off and our hospitals, particularly our rural hospitals would be in terrific shape because - THAT'S WHERE THE POOR PEOPLE ARE!
We'd also be a hell of a lot healthier. I LOVE AND ADORE TATE REEVES (vote for him every time) but the GOP and he have really screwed over all of us with this... because - politics.
That would never happen*I think people without healthcare should just keep going to the emergency room for their sniffles and aches. Then proceed to not pay the bills and cause the entire healthcare system to raise their rates on those of us who do pay our bills.
I don’t think the government funds welfare stuff (any and all kinds) out of a moral obligation to what Jesus said. It’s more of the best way to keep society functional.I'm not one to argue theology, but there is ample space for context in this passage (Matthew 25:40). It certainly doesn't tell us it is specifically about charity. See Proverbs 14:31
I find it hard to believe more paying customers is bad for business, but I'm open to learning new info. How is medicaid expansion bad for rural hospitals?It would do little if anything to improve the plight of rural hospitals. There is a possibility it would make things worse.
Yeah I can see it is a continuation of natural rights versus social contract.I don’t think the government funds welfare stuff (any and all kinds) out of a moral obligation to what Jesus said. It’s more of the best way to keep society functional.
@aspendawg is just gaslighting Christians. Many fall for it.
Ehh, it’s complicated. It often doesn’t cover overhead (at least at the initial FFS rates) but varies by state and provider and what services are being delivered. Hospitals will make it up with other payers and a lot of the Medicaid-heavy community providers have some alternative funding source to cover lossesThat's not really a meaningful statement. It doesn't cover the average cost of care because it's the lowest paying of the three major sources (i.e., Private insurance, medicare, and Medicaid). Providers are always going to negotiate salaries that reflect a blend of the rates they receive, and Medicaid is therefore always going to be lower than the average cost of providing service. The question would be whether it pays enough to cover overhead and then some, which it presumably does.
Tater is on the wrong side of this, and is too embarrassed to admit it and is doubling down.
Check on the rate of reimbursement. At best they won't go under quite as fast. Also, some of these people will have insurance currently. If that is dropped.....I find it hard to believe more paying customers is bad for business, but I'm open to learning new info. How is medicaid expansion bad for rural hospitals?
WRONG! But if you wish to learn something, you can compare the plight of rural hospitals from state's that opted in initially to state's like ours that have still not received any support. Or go talk to the CFO at your local hospital and ask about reimbursement rates. They might balk at the additional red tape, but they would sure take the money.It would do little if anything to improve the plight of rural hospitals. There is a possibility it would make things worse.
Why do the hospitals in question disagree with you?It would do little if anything to improve the plight of rural hospitals. There is a possibility it would make things worse.
It would definitely help them. You may be getting at the fact that they’d still be in a bad financial position long term, which is true, but it’d give them more runway and would improve the financial position of other health systems, which might drive acquisition + scale efficiencies/payer negotiation leverageIt would do little if anything to improve the plight of rural hospitals. There is a possibility it would make things worse.
I'm in the healthcare industry.WRONG! But if you wish to learn something, you can compare the plight of rural hospitals from state's that opted in initially to state's like ours that have still not received any support. Or go talk to the CFO at your local hospital and ask about reimbursement rates. They might balk at the additional red tape, but they would sure take the money.
I'm having trouble understanding how something is worse than nothing. Fair enough on the slice of folks currently otherwise insured; I'd be interested to see how many people this is.Check on the rate of reimbursement.
Do you lobby for the industry, sell equipment or pharmaceuticals, or do you work in the services side?I'm in the healthcare industry.
Exactly what I'm getting at. It's not going to save rural hospitals in the long run. It may slow things down, but it's not going to really change things. Obamacare was designed to force consolidation in healthcare delivery. It has been extremely effective at that. Small rural hospitals that are not part of a bigger system are doomed long term no matter what happens with Medicaid. The ones that do become part of a bigger system may have some chance, as bigger systems have an easier time passing on expenses to others to make up for the Medicaid driven shortfall. I'm not against expansion (I'm not for it either), I'd just like to see an honest debate about it. We are not getting that now. It's being held up as the savior for Lower Bugtussle County Hospital. It's not that, and was never intended to be.It would definitely help them. You may be getting at the fact that they’d still be in a bad financial position long term, which is true, but it’d give them more runway and would improve the financial position of other health systems, which might drive acquisition + scale efficiencies/payer negotiation leverage
Direct delivery, That's as close as I'm going. I'm not the only one in the family in healthcare either.Do you lobby for the industry, sell equipment or pharmaceuticals, or do you work in the services side?
At the risk of putting words in your mouth, it sounds like most of your beef is with capitalists?Exactly what I'm getting at. It's not going to save rural hospitals in the long run. It may slow things down, but it's not going to really change things. Obamacare was designed to force consolidation in healthcare delivery. It has been extremely effective at that. Small rural hospitals that are not part of a bigger system are doomed long term no matter what happens with Medicaid. The ones that do become part of a bigger system may have some chance, as bigger systems have an easier time passing on expenses to others to make up for the Medicaid driven shortfall. I'm not against expansion, I'd just like to see an honest debate about it. We are not getting that now. It's being held up as the savior for Lower Bugtussle County Hospital. It's not that, and was never intended to be.