Perchoutofwater Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 What I find interesting is the legislation aimed at banning doc owned hospitals is basically aimed at saving money by lowering medicare reimbursements. Typically Perch would be all over the Fed Gov to stop spending so much money and applaud such a move. But when it affects him personally, well... On the whole I do like it. Of course I don't care for the $500 Billion in new taxes. My man issue with the doctor owned hospitals is with the abruptness of how they went about it. One minute your drawing up new construction documents, preparing contracts etc... the next minute a law is passed that had to get passed so we knew what was in it. If it had more reasonable time lines I wouldn't have an issue with it. The doctor owned hospitals really isn't anything but a political pay back to the traditional hospital organizations. It basically made it impossible for new doctor owned hospitals to spring up and qualify as a medicare facility unless they could do 18 months of paperwork in 6 months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 On the whole I do like it. Of course I don't care for the $500 Billion in new taxes. My man issue with the doctor owned hospitals is with the abruptness of how they went about it. One minute your drawing up new construction documents, preparing contracts etc... the next minute a law is passed that had to get passed so we knew what was in it. If it had more reasonable time lines I wouldn't have an issue with it. The doctor owned hospitals really isn't anything but a political pay back to the traditional hospital organizations. It basically made it impossible for new doctor owned hospitals to spring up and qualify as a medicare facility unless they could do 18 months of paperwork in 6 months. I'm just busting your balls. I don't blame anyone for complaining about legislation, whatever it is, that affects them personally. I work for a pretty good sized non-profit healthcare system and we are basically in the mode of ramping up our physician relationships as the expectation is many will start becoming employed physicians rather than working for themselves. A lot of change will be coming in this area no matter who is trying to run things in Washington. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 On the whole I do like it. Of course I don't care for the $500 Billion in new taxes. My man issue with the doctor owned hospitals is with the abruptness of how they went about it. One minute your drawing up new construction documents, preparing contracts etc... the next minute a law is passed that had to get passed so we knew what was in it. If it had more reasonable time lines I wouldn't have an issue with it. The doctor owned hospitals really isn't anything but a political pay back to the traditional hospital organizations. It basically made it impossible for new doctor owned hospitals to spring up and qualify as a medicare facility unless they could do 18 months of paperwork in 6 months. Doctor owned hospitals are a racket. Then again, the entire current system is a racket and the main fault of Obamacare is that it built on an already rotten structure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 When our company was 80 strong we were very unorganized but realized we had to go one way or the other.......we went for growth and brought people in without selling out. We paid ultra attention to 3 things: - Risk management - HC costs - Diversifying our client base When I first started in my company we made some profit, but we were tied to one major cash cow, the petroleum industry. We used our talents, hired more talent, and diversified our services. We are still heavily tied to the petroleum industry, but our increase in profits will continue without them. Ironically, if it wasn't for the downturn in the economy,we estimate our due diligence group on property transaction review would have improved out current gross about 30 %. Now we are about 200 people strong and making approximately 100 million in gross revenue annually. Through the recession we kept hiring because our business model, despite the economy and HC costs being a primary concern. I definitely can relate to the onerous result of regulations on business practices, but Perch's claim of the Moosloom HC solely ruining his bottom line to the point he is claiming is straight out mind-numbingly ridiculous. It should be extremely embarrassing you would let a chain of likely foreseeable HC costs catch you by surprise, with or without a convenient scapegoat. A failure to plan, is a plan to failure. Get people involved with your business that know what is going on. Man up and pick yerself up by the bootstraps, Work smarter, Work harder. Be a leader and not a 40-hour a week message board poster victim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Yer online persona a joke. Oh no you didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 (edited) When our company was 80 strong we were very unorganized but realized we had to go one way or the other.......we went for growth and brought people in without selling out. We paid ultra attention to 3 things: - Risk management - HC costs - Diversifying our client base When I first started in my company we made some profit, but we were tied to one major cash cow, the petroleum industry. We used our talents, hired more talent, and diversified our services. We are still heavily tied to the petroleum industry, but our increase in profits will continue without them. Ironically, if it wasn't for the downturn in the economy,we estimate our due diligence group on property transaction review would have improved out current gross about 30 %. Now we are about 200 people strong and making approximately 100 million in gross revenue annually. Through the recession we kept hiring because our business model, despite the economy and HC costs being a primary concern. I definitely can relate to the onerous result of regulations on business practices, but Perch's claim of the Moosloom HC solely ruining his bottom line to the point he is claiming is straight out mind-numbingly ridiculous. It should be extremely embarrassing you would let a chain of likely foreseeable HC costs catch you by surprise, with or without a convenient scapegoat. A failure to plan, is a plan to failure. Get people involved with your business that know what is going on. Man up and pick yerself up by the bootstraps, Work smarter, Work harder. Be a leader and not a 40-hour a week message board poster victim. Again, if you could read rather than just trying to insult me, you would have seen where in this thread I stated the HC costs while a part of it are a minor part. The much larger part is the way in which doctor owned hospitals which I had contracts with were treated by the HC bill. It wasn't foreseeable because we didn't get to know what was in the bill until it was passed. If you actually read what I wrote, rather than just spouting off insults, you would realize that my major complaint is the unrealistic time lines that the bill placed on doctor owned hospitals to qualify for medicare reimbursements. ETA: I'm putting together a presentation for a potential client, and found these numbers you might find interesting. Since 2000 we have completed 84 projects totaling $424,845,241. Of those projects 97.5% were done via the construction management at risk delivery method which is essentially negotiated cost plus a fee, 2% have been via the negotiated GC method, and 0.5% have been hard bid. Percentages based on dollar amount of different types of projects. During that time 65% of the projects have been educational facilities, 29% have been health care facilities, and 6% have been other (primarily religious institutions). In the past two years we have done $150,108,934, of that 66% has been educational facilities, 24% has been other (primarily religious institutions), and 10% has been medical. We knew, or rather we had a very good suspicion that the construction of medical facilities would be negatively impacted by the health care bill, which is why we diversified more. What we didn't know is that three contracts were going to be canceled. Obviously we only take on work we know we can handle, and when we had those three medical contracts we turned down a few jobs that we otherwise would have taken. You will note that over the past ten years medical work has averaged 29% of our revenue, this is consistent with me saying we are going to be cutting wages by 20-30%. We are actually in much better shape than most of our competitors. I know how to run a business, and have done a fine job of it based on the numbers above which are all under my watch. What I don't know how to do is, to make people build large projects. They won't do that until they know they can get some kind of return on their investment, and with them trying to wade through the health care mess, looming tax increases and the possibility of cap and trade in a lame duck session, people are holding their money tight to their vest. Bushwanker, you might know something about middle management but it is obvious you either know little about my industry, or you know little about actually running an entire business. The reason I have so much time on my hands is there are very few projects out there to look at, that we have a reasonable chance of landing. Our company's sweet spot is in the $10MM-$20MM range. We do smaller projects for repeat clients, we have one medical facility that we have completed 111 projects for ranging from $30,000 to $65,000,000, but the majority of our projects fall into the sweet spot mentioned above. Those types of projects just aren't out there right now. Edited November 2, 2010 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Are you really serious? You think anything is going to change? Anything at all? Have you seen any election ad laying out a Republican policy map? There's only ONE possibility and that's to extend tax cuts for all, including the rich. Obama won't have a problem going along with that since the intent was to extend the vast majority anyway. All the Republicans are doing is playing along until the vote them back in, then it's $$ for the donors, get themselves re-elected and screw everything else. Edit: Oh yeah, and if a quick war can be trumped up, so much the better for their buddies in the defense industry. Oh hell no - I didn't say that. It's like I said with Kerry v. Bush, nothing serious was going to change no matter who got elected. I don't imagine obamacare will be repealed, at least not right away. But if the heffalumps go after their most recent ways of spending incessantly then I look for a 3rd party to actually make some headway in 2 years. Something of a Perot level at first, then more and more as the washington ass-clowns do the same things over and over. Like I said, the heffalumps are just in the right place at the right time. Nobody is voting FOR them because of their spending sprees the last time they were in power. They're just the only viable party other than the dems, so they're going to reap the benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 people talk about anti-constitution actions, but then talk about repealing amendments in the next breath. The part that is amazing is that you dont see any dichotomy in those actions. that happens to be exactly the way the constitution is supposed to work. the fact that it contains an internal mechanism for change is one of the things that has kept it somewhat strong over the centuries. to advocate adding or subtracting or modifiying amendments is entirely consistent with reverance for the foundational document. I'd like to see a lot more people being forthright about explicitly changing the parts of the constitution that they think no longer make sense, rather than hoping to just ignore what the constitution says by employing creative interpretation on the part legislators, regulators and judges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 that happens to be exactly the way the constitution is supposed to work. the fact that it contains an internal mechanism for change is one of the things that has kept it somewhat strong over the centuries. to advocate adding or subtracting or modifiying amendments is entirely consistent with reverance for the foundational document. I'd like to see a lot more people being forthright about explicitly changing the parts of the constitution that they think no longer make sense, rather than hoping to just ignore what the constitution says by employing creative interpretation on the part legislators, regulators and judges. Exactly what I was trying to say, though expressed much better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 that happens to be exactly the way the constitution is supposed to work. the fact that it contains an internal mechanism for change is one of the things that has kept it somewhat strong over the centuries. to advocate adding or subtracting or modifiying amendments is entirely consistent with reverance for the foundational document. I'd like to see a lot more people being forthright about explicitly changing the parts of the constitution that they think no longer make sense, rather than hoping to just ignore what the constitution says by employing creative interpretation on the part legislators, regulators and judges. I agree (you may be surprised). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 u guys do know that health insurance premiums have been going up steadily for 10-12 years. something like 10-15 percent a year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 u guys do know that health insurance premiums have been going up steadily for 10-12 years. something like 10-15 percent a year? No, they don't know that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 u guys do know that health insurance premiums have been going up steadily for 10-12 years. something like 10-15 percent a year? YOu do know that Obama promised to fix that????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrumjuice Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Ours have not. Liar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Ours have not. Liar. true if you areon some state health care plan you probably dont pay anything. dont worry i will still pay my taxes so you can get you're tetanus shots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 YOu do know that Obama promised to fix that????? how long does he get to work on it. 3 minutes 2 years 18 months ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 how long does he get to work on it. 3 minutes 2 years 18 months ? It already passed - the only work being done on it is deciding what exemptions to give. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 It already passed - the only work being done on it is deciding what exemptions to give. exactly has it started up yet?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 exactly has it started up yet?? Why is Obama giving out exemptions to large corporations and unions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Why is Obama giving out exemptions to large corporations and unions? Why ask why when you can drink bud dry? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Why ask why when you can drink bud dry? In other words you have nothing. Typikal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Why is Obama giving out exemptions to large corporations and unions? why do insurance companies deny coverage to children? why do insurance companies deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions? Why do insurance companies have life time limits? WOW this game fun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 In other words you have nothing. Typikal. i have plenty but what is the point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 why do insurance companies deny coverage to children?why do insurance companies deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions? Why do insurance companies have life time limits? WOW this game fun Insurance companies give you what you pay for. If you are willing to pay for the coverage, they will cover you. What you want them to do is give those benefits for free. You could write a law forcing them to give those benefits to everyone, but then you are going to increase the cos of everyone's insurance premiums. In other words with the insurance companies you get what you pay for. With Obamacare you get what I pay for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Insurance companies give you what you pay for. If you are willing to pay for the coverage, they will cover you. You are wrong right there.... sorry they will not cover people they deny no matter what you are willing to pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.