The Catholic Church and HealthCare.... What if the Bishops Aren't Bluffing?

[California Girl]

So Catholics are major recipients of tax dollars?

Yep. From what I understand, they get over 60% of their funding from tax dollars.

....

I don't believe a thing you post without support. Link? Nothing personal.

What I find fascinating is the obsession with how much of their funding comes from 'tax dollars'.... not a question about where the rest of their funding comes from... or how much more it would cost the tax payer on top of what we're already providing. The distinct lack of logic - or even basic math - is slightly worrisome.

More from the article:

Imagine the impact if these hospitals shut down, discounting the other 400-plus health centers and 1,500 specialized homes that the Catholic Church operates as part of its mission that would also disappear. Thanks to the economic models of these hospitals, no one will rush to buy them. One in six patients in the current system would have to vie for service in the remaining system, which would have to absorb almost $100 billion in costs each year to treat them. Over 120,000 beds would disappear from an already-stressed system.

The poor and working class families that get assistance from Catholic benefactors would end up having to pay more for their care than they do under the current system. Rural patients would have to travel farther for medical care, and services like social work and breast-cancer screenings would fall to the less-efficient government-run institutions. That would not only impact the poor and working class patients, but would create much longer wait times for everyone else in the system. Finally, over a half-million people employed by Catholic hospitals now would lose their jobs almost overnight, which would have a big impact on the economy as well as on health care.

And that's just our hospitals.... we haven't even consider the impact on the education system.... but that's in the article too.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Most posters will know, I'm not a big fan of starting threads on media articles, but I'm making an exception for this one. Because the article is a really good one, and has a lot of very significant information contained within it.

So, Obama takes on the Catholic Church... what exactly does that mean? What if the Catholic Church was forced to close its doors? I know that many, particularly on the left, would like to see the Church (and other faith based providers) forced out in order to achieve their 'Nanny State' agenda.... but just take a few minutes to consider the impact of your goal.

• 12.6 percent of hospitals are run by the Catholic Church
• 15.6 percent of all admissions - Catholic Hospitals
• 14.5 percent of all hospital expenses
• a total for Catholic hospitals in 2010 of $98.6 billion

Catholic hospitals handle more than their share of Medicare (16.6 percent) and Medicaid (13.65) discharges, meaning that more than one in six seniors and disabled patients get attention from these hospitals, and more than one in every eight low-income patients as well. Almost a third (32 percent) of these hospitals are located in rural areas, where patients usually have few other options for care.

Catholic hospitals take a leading role in providing less-profitable services to patients. They lead the sector in breast cancer screenings, nutrition programs, trauma, geriatric services, and social work. In most of these areas, other non-profits come close, but hospitals run by state and local governments fall significantly off the pace. Where patients have trouble paying for care, Catholic hospitals cover more of the costs. For instance, Catholic Health Services in Florida provides free care to families below 200 percent of federal poverty line, accepting Medicaid reimbursements as payment in full, and caps costs at 20 percent of household income for families that fall between 200 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line.

What if Catholic bishops aren’t bluffing? « Hot Air

Read the article. Then tell me it's a good thing to force the Churches out of providing services. We do it better, cheaper, and for those who are most vulnerable.

hmm interesting.

If christians close their doors over this tyranny, we will lose;

thousands of hospitals and clinics.
Schools that teach about 2.5 million kids.
The Red Cross
Salvation Army

and many more.


If obama does not give them a pass, liberalism will go into the dust bin of history, as most Americans will have a dawning moment, that the dems want absolute control.

sadly, it will take the closing for most to see this has been coming for decades.

 

[Two Thumbs]

for the trolls

what does getting tax money have to do with the fact you will lose access to healthcare?

pfft

idiots

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

California Girl please site which hospitals are owned by the church, or at least a state in which they are. Having the pleasure of overseeing several acquisitions and dispositions of Catholic hospitals, I am unaware of funds transferred to the church as result.

 

[California Girl]

California Girl please site which hospitals are owned by the church, or at least a state in which they are. Having the pleasure of overseeing several acquisitions and dispositions of Catholic hospitals, I am unaware of funds transferred to the church as result.

Just how much spoon feeding do you need? There's a link to the CHA (Catholic Health Association) in the damned link I provided in the OP. The CHA provides a directory, by state, of it's facilities.

Damn, Kiki, did no one ever teach you to read?

 

[uscitizen]

The Jehova's Witnesses would take over the Catholic hospitals and that would eliminate those pesky blood shortages.

 

[Si modo]

My impression from the bishops is that there will be no acquisitions. They will just shut their doors on hospitals (and schools). And, I don't think they are bluffing.

It's not as if the Church will go broke.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

California Girl please site which hospitals are owned by the church, or at least a state in which they are. Having the pleasure of overseeing several acquisitions and dispositions of Catholic hospitals, I am unaware of funds transferred to the church as result.

Just how much spoon feeding do you need? There's a link to the CHA (Catholic Health Association) in the damned link I provided in the OP. The CHA provides a directory, by state, of it's facilities.

Damn, Kiki, did no one ever teach you to read?

Madame, the link state "operates" and "runs" not owns as in real assets.

Your attempts to personally insult me in an effort to deflect are childish.

 

[California Girl]

My impression from the bishops is that there will be no acquisitions. They will just shut their doors on hospitals (and schools). And, I don't think they are bluffing.

It's not as if the Church will go broke.

I can see them putting up a 'Catholics only' sign. I would hate that. It's just as offensive to our faith as birth control. Our care facilities are set up specifically to follow the teachings of Christ. There is nothing in His teachings that tell us we should only treat our own. That, in itself, is against our religious liberty.

 

[Si modo]

My impression from the bishops is that there will be no acquisitions. They will just shut their doors on hospitals (and schools). And, I don't think they are bluffing.

It's not as if the Church will go broke.

I can see them putting up a 'Catholics only' sign. I would hate that. It's just as offensive to our faith as birth control. Our care facilities are set up specifically to follow the teachings of Christ. There is nothing in His teachings that tell us we should only treat our own. That, in itself, is against our religious liberty.

That's why my understanding is they will simply shut the doors, at least on the schools.

 

[California Girl]

California Girl please site which hospitals are owned by the church, or at least a state in which they are. Having the pleasure of overseeing several acquisitions and dispositions of Catholic hospitals, I am unaware of funds transferred to the church as result.

Just how much spoon feeding do you need? There's a link to the CHA (Catholic Health Association) in the damned link I provided in the OP. The CHA provides a directory, by state, of it's facilities.

Damn, Kiki, did no one ever teach you to read?

Madame, the link state "operates" and "runs" not owns as in real assets.

Your attempts to personally insult me in an effort to deflect are childish.

Well, email them and ask. I'm not your personal wiki. Stop being so fucking lazy. If you want information.... ask them.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Just how much spoon feeding do you need? There's a link to the CHA (Catholic Health Association) in the damned link I provided in the OP. The CHA provides a directory, by state, of it's facilities.

Damn, Kiki, did no one ever teach you to read?

Madame, the link state "operates" and "runs" not owns as in real assets.

Your attempts to personally insult me in an effort to deflect are childish.

Well, email them and ask. I'm not your personal wiki. Stop being so fucking lazy. If you want information.... ask them.

You made a claim. I am asking you to support it. But you can't, obviously. And your need to resort to profanity is amusing.

 

[Si modo]

An interesting read from Thompson-Reuters: Differences in Health System Quality by Ownership

"Our analysis of the quality performance of the 255 health systems in the Health System study showed that significant differences in performance exist between classes of ownership. Specifically, we found:
• Catholic and other church-owned systems are significantly more likely to provide higher quality performance and efficiency to the communities served than investor-owned systems. Catholic health systems are also significantly more likely to provide higher quality performance to the communities served than secular not-for-profit health systems.
• Investor-owned systems have significantly lower performance than all other groups.
• Performance of other church-owned systems (non-Catholic) is not statistically different from either Catholic or not-for-profit systems."

 

[California Girl]

Madame, the link state "operates" and "runs" not owns as in real assets.

Your attempts to personally insult me in an effort to deflect are childish.

Well, email them and ask. I'm not your personal wiki. Stop being so fucking lazy. If you want information.... ask them.

You made a claim. I am asking you to support it. But you can't, obviously. And your need to resort to profanity is amusing.

No, I already know.... because I make it my business to know. We own a lot of our facilities.... not all. Ain't no one gonna be taking our property away from us.

If you don't like profanity.... try not to be so fucking stupid.

 

[California Girl]

An interesting read from Thompson-Reuters: Differences in Health System Quality by Ownership

"Our analysis of the quality performance of the 255 health systems in the Health System study showed that significant differences in performance exist between classes of ownership. Specifically, we found:
• Catholic and other church-owned systems are significantly more likely to provide higher quality performance and efficiency to the communities served than investor-owned systems. Catholic health systems are also significantly more likely to provide higher quality performance to the communities served than secular not-for-profit health systems.
• Investor-owned systems have significantly lower performance than all other groups.
• Performance of other church-owned systems (non-Catholic) is not statistically different from either Catholic or not-for-profit systems."

Yep.... that's why I said we do it better and cheaper. The Catholic Church knows how to deliver services.... we do it all over the world. We have hundreds of years of experience and expertise.

Pisses me off that the drooling hordes are more concerned with their stupid 'nanny state' attitude than they are with helping the poorest and most vulnerable. Many of our hospitals and schools are in the very poorest areas - not ones that are going to attract private sector investment.

 

[Si modo]

Madame, the link state "operates" and "runs" not owns as in real assets.

Your attempts to personally insult me in an effort to deflect are childish.

Well, email them and ask. I'm not your personal wiki. Stop being so fucking lazy. If you want information.... ask them.

You made a claim. I am asking you to support it. But you can't, obviously. And your need to resort to profanity is amusing.

If I understand what you are asking, you want to know is the Catholic hospitals actually own the real estate upon which their hospital is.

I may be mistaken, but that is my understanding of your question. Please correct me if wrong.

So, I'm wondering what significance that has to much of anything. If they own the property, they own it. If they lease the real estate, I would imagine it is a long-term lease. And, if they lease the property, as long as they pay their lease, I doubt the landlord is going to care what they heck they do on that property, as long as it is not illegal or damaging to the property.

So, bottom line, why is that important information to know in this case?

 

[uscitizen]

• Investor-owned systems have significantly lower performance than all other groups.

Yep, when it is just about profits...

 

[Si modo]

An interesting read from Thompson-Reuters: Differences in Health System Quality by Ownership

"Our analysis of the quality performance of the 255 health systems in the Health System study showed that significant differences in performance exist between classes of ownership. Specifically, we found:
• Catholic and other church-owned systems are significantly more likely to provide higher quality performance and efficiency to the communities served than investor-owned systems. Catholic health systems are also significantly more likely to provide higher quality performance to the communities served than secular not-for-profit health systems.
• Investor-owned systems have significantly lower performance than all other groups.
• Performance of other church-owned systems (non-Catholic) is not statistically different from either Catholic or not-for-profit systems."

Yep.... that's why I said we do it better and cheaper. The Catholic Church knows how to deliver services.... we do it all over the world. We have hundreds of years of experience and expertise.

Pisses me off that the drooling hordes are more concerned with their stupid 'nanny state' attitude than they are with helping the poorest and most vulnerable. Many of our hospitals and schools are in the very poorest areas - not ones that are going to attract private sector investment.

I doubt they will even look for investment. I get the impression that they will shut their doors and not sell.

 

[uscitizen]

Well, email them and ask. I'm not your personal wiki. Stop being so fucking lazy. If you want information.... ask them.

You made a claim. I am asking you to support it. But you can't, obviously. And your need to resort to profanity is amusing.

If I understand what you are asking, you want to know is the Catholic hospitals actually own the real estate upon which their hospital is.

I may be mistaken, but that is my understanding of your question. Please correct me if wrong.

So, I'm wondering what significance that has to much of anything. If they own the property, they own it. If they lease the real estate, I would imagine it is a long-term lease. And, if they lease the property, as long as they pay their lease, I doubt the landlord is going to care what they heck they do on that property, as long as it is not illegal or damaging to the property.

So, bottom line, why is that important information to know in this case?

If the Catholics shut down the hospital. Will it really shut down or just be ran by someone else?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Most posters will know, I'm not a big fan of starting threads on media articles, but I'm making an exception for this one. Because the article is a really good one, and has a lot of very significant information contained within it.

So, Obama takes on the Catholic Church... what exactly does that mean? What if the Catholic Church was forced to close its doors? I know that many, particularly on the left, would like to see the Church (and other faith based providers) forced out in order to achieve their 'Nanny State' agenda.... but just take a few minutes to consider the impact of your goal.

• 12.6 percent of hospitals are run by the Catholic Church
• 15.6 percent of all admissions - Catholic Hospitals
• 14.5 percent of all hospital expenses
• a total for Catholic hospitals in 2010 of $98.6 billion

Catholic hospitals handle more than their share of Medicare (16.6 percent) and Medicaid (13.65) discharges, meaning that more than one in six seniors and disabled patients get attention from these hospitals, and more than one in every eight low-income patients as well. Almost a third (32 percent) of these hospitals are located in rural areas, where patients usually have few other options for care.

Catholic hospitals take a leading role in providing less-profitable services to patients. They lead the sector in breast cancer screenings, nutrition programs, trauma, geriatric services, and social work. In most of these areas, other non-profits come close, but hospitals run by state and local governments fall significantly off the pace. Where patients have trouble paying for care, Catholic hospitals cover more of the costs. For instance, Catholic Health Services in Florida provides free care to families below 200 percent of federal poverty line, accepting Medicaid reimbursements as payment in full, and caps costs at 20 percent of household income for families that fall between 200 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line.

What if Catholic bishops aren’t bluffing? « Hot Air

Read the article. Then tell me it's a good thing to force the Churches out of providing services. We do it better, cheaper, and for those who are most vulnerable.

Since you seem to have all the facts and figures answer me this: How many vasectomies are done in Catholic hospitals and how many are paid for by the insurance carrier for those men who work for the Catholic Church?