3 ms·

This thing got hugged to death. Also, this has nothing to do with politics. It has everything to do with private payers not paying out rural hospitals enough:

by kodah 3y ago

This thing got hugged to death. Also, this has nothing to do with politics. It has everything to do with private payers not paying out rural hospitals enough: https://ruralhospitals.chqpr.org/downloads/Rural_Hospitals_at_Risk_of_Closing.pdf https://ruralhospitals.chqpr.org/downloads/Rural_Hospitals_a... (another source)

latency-guy2 3y ago
Here's an archive from 2020 https://archive.is/AYEyC https://archive.is/AYEyC which shows that the number of closures has been gradually increasing from 2010 onwards, agreed that it's not politics as much as another removed commentor claimed it was. Rural hospitals were always on a time limit, there isn't enough people sticking around for rural or small town to keep the business running. The same goes for any business there. Death of the town is exacerbated by the cities who offer greater salaries and sometimes better activities at the cost of some living space, which can be offset by enough salary. We will see whether or not the lure of cities stay true over the next decade or two, but nothing is here to save anything small from their death.
- nobody9999 3y ago
  >Rural hospitals were always on a time limit, there isn't enough people sticking around for rural or small town to keep the business running. That seems overly focused on the economics. Which are important, but when someone in one area needs to travel 100 miles to the nearest hospital, while another has a dozen hospitals within a 35sq mile area, there's a problem. Considering only the operating costs ignores the people rural hospitals serve. Which is why a single-payer system of some sort in the US is how we get out of this, reducing overhead/profit/middlemen and (potentially) redirecting those resources to providing decent care to everyone in the US. If we don't move that forward, healthcare company execs will continue to channel Maxey Eckstein[0]: On his first day as a bus driver, Maxey Eckstein handed in receipts of $65. The next day his take was $67. The third day's income was $62. But on the fourth day, Eckstein emptied no less than $283 on the desk before the cashier. "Eckstein!" exclaimed the cashier. "This is fantastic. That route never brought in money like this! What happened?" "Well, after three days on that cockamamie route, I figured business would never improve, so I drove over to Fourteenth Street and worked there. I tell you, that street is a gold mine!" [0] https://www.anvari.org/fortune/Miscellaneous_Collections/360014_on-his-first-day-as-a-bus-driver-maxey-eckstein-handed-in-receipts-of.html https://www.anvari.org/fortune/Miscellaneous_Collections/360...
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    > when someone in one area needs to travel 100 miles to the nearest hospital, while another has a dozen hospitals within a 35sq mile area, there's a problem. put another way, when someone who needs hospital access chooses to live 100 miles away from one while other living options offer a dozen hospitals within a 35sq mile area, that person has caused a problem for themselves
  - latency-guy2 3y ago
    > That seems overly focused on the economics. Which are important, but when someone in one area needs to travel 100 miles to the nearest hospital, while another has a dozen hospitals within a 35sq mile area, there's a problem. Probably because economics is the determining factor to everything. Notice how you went directly into the same issue, and then kept the same focus for the remainder of your comment. > Which is why a single-payer system of some sort in the US is how we get out of this This is a massive jump of logic with no attempt, let alone meaningful, in connecting ideas together.
    - nobody9999 3y ago
      >Probably because economics is the determining factor to everything. Notice how you went directly into the same issue, and then kept the same focus for the remainder of your comment. My point was to compare the utility of hospitals to the utility of city buses. Yeah, if you go where all the people are, you'll have more customers. But that leaves the folks who depend on a hospital (or a bus route) without any service. >This is a massive jump of logic with no attempt, let alone meaningful, in connecting ideas together. There's no "jump of logic" here. At all. Removing the profit motive provides more resources to, you know, provide health care. Reallocating resources to more broadly provide services, in this case, to the "rural" (which is, as broadly defined by the US Census, anything that's not an urban area or adjacent suburban area -- as defined by population density, includes most small towns) population. I didn't specifically spell that out, as it seemed intuitively obvious. But I guess not, at least not for you.

by kodah 3y ago

latency-guy2 3y ago

Here's an archive from 2020 https://archive.is/AYEyC https://archive.is/AYEyC which shows that the number of closures has been gradually increasing from 2010 onwards, agreed that it's not politics as much as another removed commentor claimed it was. Rural hospitals were always on a time limit, there isn't enough people sticking around for rural or small town to keep the business running. The same goes for any business there. Death of the town is exacerbated by the cities who offer greater salaries and sometimes better activities at the cost of some living space, which can be offset by enough salary. We will see whether or not the lure of cities stay true over the next decade or two, but nothing is here to save anything small from their death.

nobody9999 3y ago
>Rural hospitals were always on a time limit, there isn't enough people sticking around for rural or small town to keep the business running. That seems overly focused on the economics. Which are important, but when someone in one area needs to travel 100 miles to the nearest hospital, while another has a dozen hospitals within a 35sq mile area, there's a problem. Considering only the operating costs ignores the people rural hospitals serve. Which is why a single-payer system of some sort in the US is how we get out of this, reducing overhead/profit/middlemen and (potentially) redirecting those resources to providing decent care to everyone in the US. If we don't move that forward, healthcare company execs will continue to channel Maxey Eckstein[0]: On his first day as a bus driver, Maxey Eckstein handed in receipts of $65. The next day his take was $67. The third day's income was $62. But on the fourth day, Eckstein emptied no less than $283 on the desk before the cashier. "Eckstein!" exclaimed the cashier. "This is fantastic. That route never brought in money like this! What happened?" "Well, after three days on that cockamamie route, I figured business would never improve, so I drove over to Fourteenth Street and worked there. I tell you, that street is a gold mine!" [0] https://www.anvari.org/fortune/Miscellaneous_Collections/360014_on-his-first-day-as-a-bus-driver-maxey-eckstein-handed-in-receipts-of.html https://www.anvari.org/fortune/Miscellaneous_Collections/360...
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  > when someone in one area needs to travel 100 miles to the nearest hospital, while another has a dozen hospitals within a 35sq mile area, there's a problem. put another way, when someone who needs hospital access chooses to live 100 miles away from one while other living options offer a dozen hospitals within a 35sq mile area, that person has caused a problem for themselves
- latency-guy2 3y ago
  > That seems overly focused on the economics. Which are important, but when someone in one area needs to travel 100 miles to the nearest hospital, while another has a dozen hospitals within a 35sq mile area, there's a problem. Probably because economics is the determining factor to everything. Notice how you went directly into the same issue, and then kept the same focus for the remainder of your comment. > Which is why a single-payer system of some sort in the US is how we get out of this This is a massive jump of logic with no attempt, let alone meaningful, in connecting ideas together.
  - nobody9999 3y ago
    >Probably because economics is the determining factor to everything. Notice how you went directly into the same issue, and then kept the same focus for the remainder of your comment. My point was to compare the utility of hospitals to the utility of city buses. Yeah, if you go where all the people are, you'll have more customers. But that leaves the folks who depend on a hospital (or a bus route) without any service. >This is a massive jump of logic with no attempt, let alone meaningful, in connecting ideas together. There's no "jump of logic" here. At all. Removing the profit motive provides more resources to, you know, provide health care. Reallocating resources to more broadly provide services, in this case, to the "rural" (which is, as broadly defined by the US Census, anything that's not an urban area or adjacent suburban area -- as defined by population density, includes most small towns) population. I didn't specifically spell that out, as it seemed intuitively obvious. But I guess not, at least not for you.