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

[Two Thumbs]

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

Who would run it?

It takes thousands to run a hospital. And how could anyone just walk in and set up shop in a building they don't own or lease?

Do you seriously think that none of the employees would keep working for a new employer?
That all the employees in a catholic run hospital are devout catholics?

Irrelevant.


The remaining hospitals will still only have so much room.

they may have enough staff, but not enough beds.

unless you really want to skip to the end and have heart attack victims in hallways, like in UK and EU.

Lets get those standards lowered now?

 

[Two Thumbs]

I am aware of the economic model/operating margins of both faith and non-faith based hospitals; not much a difference between the two, in fact some might say zero difference.

The cities will develop incentives to make the acquisitions attractive to neighboring systems so that these companies will step in to maintain operations. In doing so, the staff will most likely stay as they need their jobs, the infrastructure remains and the cities maintain the minimum need necessary to care for the people. Hectic and an added burden, yes but short term impact.

In reference to underserved who will go without care, California passed a law stating no party can be turned from an emergency room. Albeit a burden to the state, it has implemented a care providing landscape regardless of faith or not.

You're operating under the assumption that the church will let other people run the show.

 

[California Girl]

I am aware of the economic model/operating margins of both faith and non-faith based hospitals; not much a difference between the two, in fact some might say zero difference.

The cities will develop incentives to make the acquisitions attractive to neighboring systems so that these companies will step in to maintain operations. In doing so, the staff will most likely stay as they need their jobs, the infrastructure remains and the cities maintain the minimum need necessary to care for the people. Hectic and an added burden, yes but short term impact.

In reference to underserved who will go without care, California passed a law stating no party can be turned from an emergency room. Albeit a burden to the state, it has implemented a care providing landscape regardless of faith or not.

You're operating under the assumption that the church will let other people run the show.

She keeps ignoring the reality of the situation... as stated in 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.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Who would run it?

It takes thousands to run a hospital. And how could anyone just walk in and set up shop in a building they don't own or lease?

Do you seriously think that none of the employees would keep working for a new employer?
That all the employees in a catholic run hospital are devout catholics?

Even if I am wrong and they don't just padlock their doors, there are two pieces of information that you should consider:

1. Most of the Catholic hospitals are in areas where others (private investors, other not-for-profit healthcare systems, etc.) will not be interested in, and;

2. If the other operator systems do happen to be interested in the site, they will provide lower quality healthcare for higher costs (according to the data I posted above).

And this is the 'crisis' portion. Not because the hospitals don't want to provide care, but it is because their resources are stretched.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

I am aware of the economic model/operating margins of both faith and non-faith based hospitals; not much a difference between the two, in fact some might say zero difference.

The cities will develop incentives to make the acquisitions attractive to neighboring systems so that these companies will step in to maintain operations. In doing so, the staff will most likely stay as they need their jobs, the infrastructure remains and the cities maintain the minimum need necessary to care for the people. Hectic and an added burden, yes but short term impact.

In reference to underserved who will go without care, California passed a law stating no party can be turned from an emergency room. Albeit a burden to the state, it has implemented a care providing landscape regardless of faith or not.

You're operating under the assumption that the church will let other people run the show.

She keeps ignoring the reality of the situation... as stated in 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.

Two thumbs - if the church leaves it is not their show to run.

California Girl - you are ignoring that business occurs, cities overt crisis' and hospitals are bought and sold and change from holding to operating companies everyday in the USA.

 

[Si modo]

I am aware of the economic model/operating margins of both faith and non-faith based hospitals; not much a difference between the two, in fact some might say zero difference. ....

Hmmm, not according to this study:

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."

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

You know, after coming here to this forum, I'm beginning to 'understand' somewhat, the liberal mindset when it comes to government.

For conservatives, the issue with the contraception mandate is NOT contraception itself. It is the right of a federal government to DICTATE what a religious organization can and cannot do. In the liberal mind, the government has DICTATED that contraception will be paid for by employers. PERIOD. There is no room for discussion because in the liberal mind, the imposition of the mandate imposes something that they feel is good. And the liberal, unable to discern the difference between the act of using contraception and the government's mandate for it's provision, cannot believe that someone would actually be against the mandate. After all in the liberal mind if you're against the mandate then in effect, you are against contraception itself. Here's another example. If you are against affirmative action, it is not the imposition of the MANDATE that you are against. To the liberal mindset, you are really against the notion that minorities should get equal opportunity. Conservatives who argue that government should not be involved in promoting one class, race, or sex of people over another in any shape or form, falls flat to the liberal mindset that you cannot fix a wrong without a central government or judicial mandate. Another example would be abortion. You cannot be against Roe v Wade without being completely against abortion. To believe that it is within the perview of the different states is to introduce individual decisions on something that they have determined is a good thing. The mandate and the act is inseperable.

You see, in the liberal mind, government mandates, regulations, judicial decisions and such are a good thing. After all, liberals know that the masses are basically 'unwashed' and 'uneducated.' They cannot be allowed to be free, they have to be 'herded' so to speak. Told what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. As I have said before, told in what line to stand to get their marching orders. If the liberal has determined that something is good, then of course what naturally follows is a government order to CONFORM. Those who do are rewarded. Those who do not, will be punished in some way.

That's why I cannot be a liberal. I am an American and I will not go where you tell me to go, do what you tell me to do, or believe what you tell me to believe because it's "all for my own good." You know in the book 1984 there is a somewhat faceless person who constantly berates and lectures at the masses who shuffle along mindlessly...

That faceless voice is the voice of a liberal...

 

[Two Thumbs]

You're operating under the assumption that the church will let other people run the show.

She keeps ignoring the reality of the situation... as stated in 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.

Two thumbs - if the church leaves it is not their show to run.

California Girl - you are ignoring that business occurs, cities overt crisis' and hospitals are bought and sold and change from holding to operating companies everyday in the USA.

I leave my house, it's still my house.

The church closes a hospital, someone will have to buy it. The church is under no obligation to sell, since they will be confident that obama will be forced to keep his word.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Here's is an interesting article from the Dayton Daily News from Feb. 11 of this year:

UD to re-evaluate contraception plan

It seems when a light exposes an issue it becomes uncomfortable, so now at least one Archbishop feels a need to refer the matter to, "Our moral theologians" and at the Catholic University of Dayton, "officials said Friday they are re-evaluating the university’s medical plan, which covers birth control pills and procedures including vasectomies and tubal ligations, as controversy continues to boil over whether a federal health care edict abridges religious freedom".

So, in the name of religious freedom the right of women and men to chose may be abridged, all because the Republican Party is solely focused on winning in November.

I wonder when the RCs flipped from supporting Obama in the last election to being against him.

The GOP made them do it?

Or, are they determined to protect their freedoms?

Personally, I go with the latter.

IMO the GOP shined the light on the issue for solely political reasons. There are good and devout individuals who work for the Catholic Church who disagree with the (absurd, IMO) policy of the church on contraception; priests, nuns and even Archbishops who understand the human factor in the equation yet remain true to their vows of obedience.

God (if He or She exists) gave our species a brain capable of making decisions and of ways to prevent conception. Other men have no more insight in His or Her will then do you or I.

You're smart enough to see real world problems - in terms of power and control, inadequate food or clean water, disease and poverty - all of which make an absolute ban on birth control foolish. Do no harm ought to be the phrase which guides the church, and does guide efforts by some devout followers to stray.

 

[Si modo]

Do you seriously think that none of the employees would keep working for a new employer?
That all the employees in a catholic run hospital are devout catholics?

Even if I am wrong and they don't just padlock their doors, there are two pieces of information that you should consider:

1. Most of the Catholic hospitals are in areas where others (private investors, other not-for-profit healthcare systems, etc.) will not be interested in, and;

2. If the other operator systems do happen to be interested in the site, they will provide lower quality healthcare for higher costs (according to the data I posted above).

And this is the 'crisis' portion. Not because the hospitals don't want to provide care, but it is because their resources are stretched.

So, let's make it worse by driving the Catholics - the highest quality for the lowest cost - out.

Obama is playing brinkmanship with the Church - and the Church is playing back. From my standpoint, it's an important fight as it pertains to the Constitution. Should the collateral damage be to so many patients who will be out of available healthcare during any transition time that will arise, IF there is a transition time? And, should healthcare costs go up because of this power grab?

I just have to shake my head about the POTUS. And, it's ONLY at the POTUS, because healthcare is not the highest priority of the Church, it's the soul. And, I don't see them budging on that one at all.

 

[Si modo]

Here's is an interesting article from the Dayton Daily News from Feb. 11 of this year:

UD to re-evaluate contraception plan

It seems when a light exposes an issue it becomes uncomfortable, so now at least one Archbishop feels a need to refer the matter to, "Our moral theologians" and at the Catholic University of Dayton, "officials said Friday they are re-evaluating the university’s medical plan, which covers birth control pills and procedures including vasectomies and tubal ligations, as controversy continues to boil over whether a federal health care edict abridges religious freedom".

So, in the name of religious freedom the right of women and men to chose may be abridged, all because the Republican Party is solely focused on winning in November.

I wonder when the RCs flipped from supporting Obama in the last election to being against him.

The GOP made them do it?

Or, are they determined to protect their freedoms?

Personally, I go with the latter.

IMO the GOP shined the light on the issue for solely political reasons. There are good and devout individuals who work for the Catholic Church who disagree with the (absurd, IMO) policy of the church on contraception; priests, nuns and even Archbishops who understand the human factor in the equation yet remain true to their vows of obedience.

God (if He or She exists) gave our species a brain capable of making decisions and of ways to prevent conception. Other men have no more insight in His or Her will then do you or I.

You're smart enough to see real world problems - in terms of power and control, inadequate food or clean water, disease and poverty - all of which make an absolute ban on birth control foolish. Do no harm ought to be the phrase which guides the church, and does guide efforts by some devout followers to stray.

Well, of course the GOP would highlight this for political reasons. The GOP is a political entity.

 

[uscitizen]

Who would run it?

It takes thousands to run a hospital. And how could anyone just walk in and set up shop in a building they don't own or lease?

Do you seriously think that none of the employees would keep working for a new employer?
That all the employees in a catholic run hospital are devout catholics?

Even if I am wrong and they don't just padlock their doors, there are two pieces of information that you should consider:

1. Most of the Catholic hospitals are in areas where others (private investors, other not-for-profit healthcare systems, etc.) will not be interested in, and;

2. If the other operator systems do happen to be interested in the site, they will provide lower quality healthcare for higher costs (according to the data I posted above).

I think that most of the catholic hospitals are in areas that are medical centers of their states, etc.

It is that way in KY at least.


For example:

The right of Catholic hospitals to follow Catholic moral guidelines is being challenged in Kentucky.

Under a proposed hospital merger, a Catholic hospital organization would own 70% of a three- hospital group in Louisville, of which one of those hospitals is presently a public university entity.

Anti-Lifers Target Catholic Hospital Merger in Kentucky | CatholicVote.org

Louisville and Lexington are the 2 major medical centers of KY.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I wonder when the RCs flipped from supporting Obama in the last election to being against him.

The GOP made them do it?

Or, are they determined to protect their freedoms?

Personally, I go with the latter.

IMO the GOP shined the light on the issue for solely political reasons. There are good and devout individuals who work for the Catholic Church who disagree with the (absurd, IMO) policy of the church on contraception; priests, nuns and even Archbishops who understand the human factor in the equation yet remain true to their vows of obedience.

God (if He or She exists) gave our species a brain capable of making decisions and of ways to prevent conception. Other men have no more insight in His or Her will then do you or I.

You're smart enough to see real world problems - in terms of power and control, inadequate food or clean water, disease and poverty - all of which make an absolute ban on birth control foolish. Do no harm ought to be the phrase which guides the church, and does guide efforts by some devout followers to stray.

Well, of course the GOP would highlight this for political reasons. The GOP is a political entity.

And so is the Catholic Church. Consider, the GOP wants more people in its tent, so does the Catholic Church. Both understand that numbers matter, and both in their own way can be seen as undemocratic and authoritarian. Republicans call those who disagree RINOS and Bishops call those who question authority Heretics.

 

[Si modo]

Do you seriously think that none of the employees would keep working for a new employer?
That all the employees in a catholic run hospital are devout catholics?

Even if I am wrong and they don't just padlock their doors, there are two pieces of information that you should consider:

1. Most of the Catholic hospitals are in areas where others (private investors, other not-for-profit healthcare systems, etc.) will not be interested in, and;

2. If the other operator systems do happen to be interested in the site, they will provide lower quality healthcare for higher costs (according to the data I posted above).

I think that most of the catholic hospitals are in areas that are medical centers of their states, etc.

It is that way in KY at least.


For example:

The right of Catholic hospitals to follow Catholic moral guidelines is being challenged in Kentucky.

Under a proposed hospital merger, a Catholic hospital organization would own 70% of a three- hospital group in Louisville, of which one of those hospitals is presently a public university entity.

Anti-Lifers Target Catholic Hospital Merger in Kentucky | CatholicVote.org

Louisville and Lexington are the 2 major medical centers of KY.

And, that's a local example you have.

However, the data posted earlier in this thread shows that a more than significant number will not be taken over by for-profit or other not-for-profits, IF the Church makes them available.

 

[Si modo]

IMO the GOP shined the light on the issue for solely political reasons. There are good and devout individuals who work for the Catholic Church who disagree with the (absurd, IMO) policy of the church on contraception; priests, nuns and even Archbishops who understand the human factor in the equation yet remain true to their vows of obedience.

God (if He or She exists) gave our species a brain capable of making decisions and of ways to prevent conception. Other men have no more insight in His or Her will then do you or I.

You're smart enough to see real world problems - in terms of power and control, inadequate food or clean water, disease and poverty - all of which make an absolute ban on birth control foolish. Do no harm ought to be the phrase which guides the church, and does guide efforts by some devout followers to stray.

Well, of course the GOP would highlight this for political reasons. The GOP is a political entity.

And so is the Catholic Church. Consider, the GOP wants more people in its tent, so does the Catholic Church. Both understand that numbers matter, and both in their own way can be seen as undemocratic and authoritarian. Republicans call those who disagree RINOS and Bishops call those who question authority Heretics.

The Church does dabble in politics, for sure, but they are not a party.

Yes, the Chruch definitely wants to increase the number of Catholics, too.

However, the Church did not 'turn on' Obama because of the GOP; because most Catholics supported and support Obama. Not in this, though.

Obama is rapidly losing a significant portion of his base with this.

But, I'm more interested in putting the brakes on Obama's 'blasphemy' of the US Constitution.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Even if I am wrong and they don't just padlock their doors, there are two pieces of information that you should consider:

1. Most of the Catholic hospitals are in areas where others (private investors, other not-for-profit healthcare systems, etc.) will not be interested in, and;

2. If the other operator systems do happen to be interested in the site, they will provide lower quality healthcare for higher costs (according to the data I posted above).

I think that most of the catholic hospitals are in areas that are medical centers of their states, etc.

It is that way in KY at least.


For example:

The right of Catholic hospitals to follow Catholic moral guidelines is being challenged in Kentucky.

Under a proposed hospital merger, a Catholic hospital organization would own 70% of a three- hospital group in Louisville, of which one of those hospitals is presently a public university entity.

Anti-Lifers Target Catholic Hospital Merger in Kentucky | CatholicVote.org

Louisville and Lexington are the 2 major medical centers of KY.

And, that's a local example you have.

However, the data posted earlier in this thread shows that a more than significant number will not be taken over by for-profit or other not-for-profits, IF the Church makes them available.

It seems you're not interested in debate, or you're incapable of responding when an argument challenges your assumptions. Sorry, I had no intent in creating congnitive dissonance.

 

[Si modo]

I think that most of the catholic hospitals are in areas that are medical centers of their states, etc.

It is that way in KY at least.


For example:

The right of Catholic hospitals to follow Catholic moral guidelines is being challenged in Kentucky.

Under a proposed hospital merger, a Catholic hospital organization would own 70% of a three- hospital group in Louisville, of which one of those hospitals is presently a public university entity.

Anti-Lifers Target Catholic Hospital Merger in Kentucky | CatholicVote.org

Louisville and Lexington are the 2 major medical centers of KY.

And, that's a local example you have.

However, the data posted earlier in this thread shows that a more than significant number will not be taken over by for-profit or other not-for-profits, IF the Church makes them available.

It seems you're not interested in debate, or you're incapable of responding when an argument challenges your assumptions. Sorry, I had no intent in creating congnitive dissonance.

Well, I did respond to US Citizen in that post. I'm sorry you missed that.

If you want to take your ball and go home, who am I to stop you?

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

I am aware of the economic model/operating margins of both faith and non-faith based hospitals; not much a difference between the two, in fact some might say zero difference. ....

Hmmm, not according to this study:

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."

This analysis references performance indicators. I am speaking to the balance sheet.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

She keeps ignoring the reality of the situation... as stated in the article:

Two thumbs - if the church leaves it is not their show to run.

California Girl - you are ignoring that business occurs, cities overt crisis' and hospitals are bought and sold and change from holding to operating companies everyday in the USA.

I leave my house, it's still my house.

The church closes a hospital, someone will have to buy it. The church is under no obligation to sell, since they will be confident that obama will be forced to keep his word.

Again..the church does not own the physical entity nor the contents within, most are built on bond financing under a complex debt model.

 

[syrenn]

I have ZERO love for the church...any church for that matter. I truthfully could care less what the church wants or does not want.

However.... this is a dangerous slippery slope of government interfering in religions. I hope the bishops don't back down and close everything.

And lets see how a national catholic strike goes over.