Economic Panel

[Pope Flick]

{grunge] I only said give me ONE example [/grunge]

 

Again, you supporters of the obamessiah will call this schtick, but he is OUT OF HIS DEPTH. He doesn't have a clue what his decisions are going to do to the economy. Case in point, after the passage of obamacare, obama's chief dog washer valerie whatever was calling many companies, and insisting they were all republican CEO's only looking to give his highness a black eye. When Waxman, Stupak et al started making noise about hearings, they got some advice from people who actually UNDERSTOOD business and regulation, and they nixed the hearings right quick. Because they truly thought the crap they were doing would lower costs. They do not understand or don't believe what the CBO and other analysts are saying. He's incompetent as any president in a long, long time. It was an American idol election and the idiots voted for him because he was cool and hip, and the republicans were stinking up the joint.

 

 

100% drivel. If he was so incompetent he wouldn't have passed health care, his signature campaign pledge, platform and promise. It's that easy to call this wrong.

[bpwallace49]

Perch . . . here you go. I am sorry that your specific, individual physican-owned hospital projects were put on hold. Here is an article in BusinessWeek that highlights WHY there is a provision in the Health Care bill about them. I also note that this idea was first put in place in 2003 . . . well before the Health care bill came along.

 

Should Doctors Own Hospitals?

Controversy builds over a fast-growing, profit-driven business

 

Buried in the deficit-reduction bill that President George W. Bush signed on Feb. 8 was a mandate that could put the kibosh on a hot trend in health care: hospitals that are partly owned and run by doctors.

 

For years critics have complained that when doctors invest in hospitals, conflicts of interest arise that could endanger patients and threaten the survival of general hospitals. The critique cuts across the political spectrum, voiced by the likes of Senator Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Representative Pete Stark (D-Calif.). In 2003, Congress placed a moratorium on enrolling such facilities in Medicare and Medicaid while it examined the criticisms. The suspension was supposed to end on Feb. 15, but the signed budget bill requires that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services extend the moratorium as much as six more months, while it prepares a report for Congress.

 

The Medicare delay has chilled what was once a fast-growing niche. Business took off in the 1990s when gargantuan hospital chains such as Tenet Healthcare Corp. (THC ) went on consolidation binges. Bands of doctors broke away and built facilities that would let them practice medicine unfettered by administrative rigmarole. They boosted efficiency and profits by specializing in lucrative practices such as orthopedics and cardiac care.

 

Now there are more than 100 physician-owned specialty hospitals. Proponents like Dr. Richard I. Fogel, vice-chairman and part owner of Heart Center of Indiana in Indianapolis, say such facilities offer patients superior care. But the business may soon be in jeopardy. "If Medicare were to decide patients shouldn't come here, we'd have to reevaluate the business model," Fogel says.

 

One concern about specialty hospitals is that they selectively treat the most lucrative patients. A study of heart hospitals in Arizona found that about 21% of patients admitted to physician-owned hospitals undergo routine surgeries such as a heart bypass but are otherwise relatively healthy. Only 10% of patients fit that profile at facilities that aren't doctor-owned; the vast majority are more complicated and expensive to treat because they have serious problems, such as diabetes and other chronic conditions.

 

"THIS ISN'T FAIR COMPETITION"

When physician-owners focus on less complex cases, they still earn returns on ancillary services, such as X-rays. But they dodge having to dole out care that isn't adequately reimbursed, such as nursing costs for patients who linger for days after their surgeries, too sick to go home. "When you're an owner, you have an incentive to make sure every case is profitable," says Jean M. Mitchell, professor of public policy at Georgetown University and author of the Arizona study. "It's scary."

 

Some critics charge that specialty hospitals also slough off uninsured patients, who invariably end up in the emergency rooms of nonprofit hospitals. Those hospitals, facing an exodus of insured patients to specialized rivals, may find it hard to stay afloat since they can't balance the cost of treating the uninsured with profits from performing pricey procedures on the insured. A study by the Texas Hospital Assn. (THA) found that the year after a heart-imaging facility opened in one town, the cardiac care center at the nearby community hospital slid from a $524,646 net profit to a $20,786 net loss. "We're all for competition," says THA spokesman Gregg Knaupe. "Problem is, this isn't fair competition."

 

Specialty hospitals may also drive up aggregate health-care costs by spurring demand for pricey elective surgeries, according to a Jan. 25 survey by the Center for Studying Health System Change in Washington. The THA, the American Hospital Assn., and several other groups are lobbying legislators to impose some restraints, such as barring physicians from referring patients to hospitals they partly own.

 

This infuriates physicians such as Dr. John R. Harvey, co-president and cardiologist at Oklahoma Heart Hospital in Oklahoma City. He says critics overlook the positives for patients of physician-owned hospitals, such as their tendency to have more nurses on the floor and to invest more in high-tech gear. In fact, specialty hospitals often score high marks from independent rating agencies such as Health Grades Inc. (HGRD ). Harvey adds that at hospitals such as his, a physician rarely owns more than a 3% stake. "To suggest I would admit a patient because I'm motivated by a minuscule profit margin is obscene," he says.

 

Other physician owners highlight the value of specialization. "We're focused on doing one thing and doing it extremely well," says Dr. John W. Dietz, Jr., chairman of the board of managers of Indiana Orthopaedic Hospital in Indianapolis. "We think focused care is a great model for medicine."

 

In addition to stalling the experiment of doctor-owned facilities, the Medicare moratorium has been painful for many investors. MedCath Corp. (MDTH ) in Charlotte, N.C., which partners with physicians in operating 12 heart hospitals, has been forced to hold off on its expansion plans. The company's stock has fallen nearly 35% in the past six months, to 18.80.

 

With the suspension likely to be extended, the onus is now on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to deal with the conflict. The agency, says a CMS official, will prepare a report that addresses conflict-of-interest concerns by scrutinizing how physician-ownership deals are structured and examining how such hospitals treat uninsured patients. Based on those findings, Congress may decide to revamp the rules for physician-owned care. Legislators are facing a tricky task, says Stuart Gutterman, senior program director at the Commonwealth Fund's Program on Medicare's Future in Washington: "They'll have to balance the physicians' desires with the concerns of patients and communities."

[posty]

100% drivel. If he was so incompetent he wouldn't have passed health care, his signature campaign pledge, platform and promise. It's that easy to call this wrong.

 

Obama had nothing to do with passing health care... All he did was sign that crap into law... The idiots in Congress were the ones that passed it...

[bpwallace49]

Obama had nothing to do with passing health care... All he did was sign that crap into law... The idiots in Congress were the ones that passed it...

 

Yep. +1

[Pope Flick]

Obama had nothing to do with passing health care... All he did was sign that crap into law... The idiots in Congress were the ones that passed it...

 

 

Right. That's why it wasn't done before he was elected.

[gbpfan1231]

Wow.

 

I believe you'd take a bullet for this guy. Amazing.

Now that is Hope and Change I would vote for.

[driveby]

100% drivel. If he was so incompetent he wouldn't have passed health care, his signature campaign pledge, platform and promise. It's that easy to call this wrong.

And the Dems are so proud of their work that they're running away from it as fast as they can.

[Azazello1313]

Sooo while companies are banking record profits in some areas of the economy, they just arent hiring people because . . . uncertainty that taxes may or may not rise in the future. Riiiiight . . . . .

 

"Hmm . . lets seee. We have slashed payroll, cut jobs, and are running extremely efficiently and making RECORD profits! Hmm . . but we dont want to increase our business and expand or re-hire some of these people, cause jeez! The possibility exists that things may be difficult in the future! So why dont we continue to hold onto these record profits for as long as we can and NOT grow . . . cause the future is soooo y'know, uncertain!"

 

umm, yeah, pretty much. "record profits" (ZMOG!), while revenues sag. try and look beyond your own little myopic cocoon and ask, what does that really tell you? simply that they are saving and not spending. meaning, they aren't hiring, they aren't investing in R&D, they aren't looking at new ways to expand market share (unless you count waiting around for their competitors to go out of business). they are instead milking their current market share, their current employees, their current capital and business infrastructure at the expense of future growth, just trying to limit losses and ride out the storm. it tells of an bearish outlook that is incredibly widespread at the moment.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Azazello1313

[westvirginia]

100% drivel. If he was so incompetent he wouldn't have passed health care, his signature campaign pledge, platform and promise. It's that easy to call this wrong.

 

OK, then you give me another plausible reason why the sequence of events I described went down the way they did. Its pretty much easily identifiable in the news. I won't hold my breath, because like always, you guys never really point out any real accomplishments the man has, you just indicate it's all "schtick" or "drivel". You want to shoot the messenger because you're "tired of defending him".

[Pope Flick]

OK, then you give me another plausible reason why the sequence of events I described went down the way they did. Its pretty much easily identifiable in the news. I won't hold my breath, because like always, you guys never really point out any real accomplishments the man has, you just indicate it's all "schtick" or "drivel". You want to shoot the messenger because you're "tired of defending him".

 

 

No, the simple fact of the matter is what you described is your perception of what happened without all of the facts. So that's a challenge I'd never win because without more details - such as what was being said between everyone - we'll never really know what happened. But you do, in your infinite wisdom.

 

Sure, people get promoted to their level of incompetence all the time in the real world. But it doesn't happen at the presidential level, no matter how hard or much you want to believe it. Has he been perfect? Of course not. Has he done well in a chitcanned economy that went belly up the month before he won the election? Yes, absolutely. And you disagree.

[bpwallace49]

OK, then you give me another plausible reason why the sequence of events I described went down the way they did. Its pretty much easily identifiable in the news. I won't hold my breath, because like always, you guys never really point out any real accomplishments the man has, you just indicate it's all "schtick" or "drivel". You want to shoot the messenger because you're "tired of defending him".

 

Actually all I have asked is that people stick to legit issues (some of which do need to be measured over a time period quicker than a Fox News update) and to step away from the moronic socialist closet m00slim crap that many spew forth.

 

Evaluate the actions on their own merits, but the TMZ level of posting about Obama clouds the fact that there is a LOT to be legitimately pissed about without. Why post stupid drivel like he was really born in Kenya, that he is a closet m00slim, or where he went for a vacation? Stick to the issues.

[Ursa Majoris]

Perch . . . here you go. I am sorry that your specific, individual physican-owned hospital projects were put on hold. Here is an article in BusinessWeek that highlights WHY there is a provision in the Health Care bill about them. I also note that this idea was first put in place in 2003 . . . well before the Health care bill came along.

One more piece of evidence that health care is a gigantic racket.

[Savage Beatings]

So, nothing accomplished here I guess.

 

I seriously can't wait for the Bushwacked Dems to start campaigning on how wonderful Obamacare really will be if we just give it a chance and, and how after almost two years Obama has really made Bush's recession a lot better for all of us than we may think. That's clearly a message that will resonate with the people.

[bushwacked]

So, nothing accomplished here I guess.

 

I seriously can't wait for the Bushwacked Dems to start campaigning on how wonderful Obamacare really will be if we just give it a chance and, and how after almost two years Obama has really made Bush's recession a lot better for all of us than we may think. That's clearly a message that will resonate with the people.

 

Nope, people don't have the capacity to grasp the magnitude of either problem. They want instant improvement and it's not something that is going to happen right away. Plus, much more comprehensive HC legislation is needed to address the root of the problem. But you're right, Savage Beating Repubs will listen to Rush and blame Obama because he didn't perform miracles in first 2 years in office.

Edited September 22, 2010 by bushwacked

[gbpfan1231]

Nope, people don't have the capacity to grasp the magnitude of either problem. They want instant improvement and it's not something that is going to happen right away. Plus, much more comprehensive HC legislation is needed to address the root of the problem. But you're right, Savage Beating Repubs will listen to Rush and blame Obama because he didn't perform miracles in first 2 years in office.

The only thing Obama has done successfully in his first 2 years is keep his approval rating up in ference to black people - I am sure that is 100% due to his accomplishments though. Other than that he has done a big fat nothing (succesful that is).

[Azazello1313]

getting back to the original post, some economist responses

[bushwacked]

:AZZ: Read this :AZZ

[wiegie]

the best picture of the recession that I have:

 

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/1-iwz...feat=directlink

 

note 3 things:

1) the recent up-and-down blip is due to temporary census workers

2) it's not clear at all that the recovery from this recession is worse than the recovery from the 1990 and 2001 recessions (in terms of the upward slopes of the curves relative to the initial downturns

3) the labor market is going to take years to recover no matter what happens

Nobody found this interesting? I think the picture really says a lot of what there is to say.

[WaterMan]

Nobody found this interesting? I think the picture really says a lot of what there is to say.

 

The graph looks to show the screwing of the working class American since 2001. Now if only we had a side by side with another graph that showed the profits of American companies that oursource jobs.

[bpwallace49]

Nobody found this interesting? I think the picture really says a lot of what there is to say.

 

It needs more pocs of Obama with a Hitler mustache for it to be effective.

[Azazello1313]

Nobody found this interesting? I think the picture really says a lot of what there is to say.

 

it seems to me like the recovery coming out of all of them is steep compared with this "recovery". the only one with such a mildly inclining "recovery" is 2001, but peak unemployment there was only barely over 6%, so the climb back to a more "normal" rate was much shorter. now you can say all the other "recoveries" are steeper because this one is so much deeper, but that in large part reflects how you chose to select your data inputs. for example, the way you draw the 1981-82 recession, ok, peak-to-trough was "only" a 3% drop in unemployment. but the starting point there was 7.4%, whereas the starting point in late 2007 was 4.7. that is a big difference that makes the ~10% bottom in both cases look a lot different the way you chose to represent them graphically. 1980-83 was a whole series of little recessions, where the next one came before the economy was really "recovered" from the last. real peak employment before all of that was under 6% unemployment in late 1979, to a bottom of 10.8 in '82. that's pretty close to the total drop in the most recent recession, which would make your graph look a whole lot different. the point is, when the economy actually began recovering in 1983, it was REALLY recovering.

 

if anything, all this really tells you is that where we're at now is more like 1981 than 1983, and there may be some tough slogging ahead if a real recovery doesn't take shape fairly soon.