Posted on 11/27/2007 6:50:27 AM PST by shrinkermd
Hundreds of hospice providers across the country are facing the catastrophic financial consequence of what would otherwise seem a positive development: their patients are living longer than expected.
Over the last eight years, the refusal of patients to die according to actuarial schedules has led the federal government to demand that hospices exceeding reimbursement limits repay hundreds of millions of dollars to Medicare.
The charges are assessed retrospectively, so in most cases the money has long since been spent on salaries, medicine and supplies. After absorbing huge assessments for several years, often by borrowing at high rates, a number of hospice providers are bracing for a new round that they fear may shut their doors.
One is Hometown Hospice, which has been providing care here since 2003 to some of the most destitute residents of Wilcox County, the poorest place in Alabama.
The locally owned, for-profit agency, which serves about 60 patients, mostly in their homes, had to repay the government $900,000, or 27 percent of its revenues, from its first two years of operation, said Tanya O. Walker-Butts, a co-owner. Its profits were wiped out in the time it took to open the demand letters, Ms. Walker-Butts said.
Hometown paid its first assessment with a bank loan. When the bank declined credit for the second year, the hospice structured a five-year payment plan with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal agency that administers the program, at 12.5 percent interest.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Other site?
Praying for you.
Nurses are the same way. Many more good than bad, but some of them shouldn't be anywhere near a medical facility.
Now you’ve crossed the line. Accusing me of murder? This is why you extreme wackos are laughed at. Yes, laughed at. You are just pathetic. Your post says so much more about you than you meant to say about me. I hope EVERYBODY reads it.
Their solvency could potentially also be extended by reducing the need for expensive medical treatments through implementing compulsory government-imposed lifestyle restrictions, and/or vice surcharges (smoking, drinking, eating 'unhealthy' food, spending too much time in the sun, etc). But really, because of the extended average lifespan expected from such policies, and the associated cost increase in programs like social security, government savings would only be guaranteed with an active euthanasia policy. Additional cost benefits could be introduced using genetic and prenatal screening to gauge proscribed parameters determining candidacy for mandatory abortion and involuntary sterilization.
I take a very dark view of the near future in this regard...IMO, most of you reading this will be alive (if ever so shortly) to witness the implementation of systematic "common-good" federal euthanasia and fetal-screening programs, either carried out under UN orders, or via letter carried in the claws of democracy. This underscores one of the most critical reasons why libertarian and social conservatives should seek to be united against expansive government power - power which breeds dependency - where no power should be held, and against lax protections in those few areas where the government has an absolute moral mandate to be one of the last lines of defense for our lives and liberty.
Cradle to grave, make no mistake; without a herculean political effort, it will be so in the purest sense. If deviation from our present road is not introduced, any death (in the womb, during childhood, adulthood, or in old age) not both sanctioned and carried out by some level of government will become an anomaly. Life and liberty are already - today, right now - negotiable, subject to the whims of the masses, subject to the tempests of fleeting emotion.
The end result of democracy will not be pretty. The scariest part? The orders will be drafted and carried out by individuals clear of conscience and sound of mind. For they will think such is to do "good".
ping to myself -
Can’t stay up to read all the posts - but will tomorrow.
Night, all!
Isn’t it going to be wonderful when the government gets its Mitts on our health care system?!!
Strange reaction here. Suddenly we have a “right to healthcare”! Who’d a thunk it!
Mitts. Hillarys. Whatever.
Those of us who pay for it do. But some folks think the ones who paid should be denied basic care, to make room for illegal invaders.
The only real error, as contrasted a differing opinion on this matter that I have noticed, is the assertion that dying of dehydration is a pleasant way to go.
This is not the case. Dying of dehydration is a painful, slow death as your organ systems shut down. It is also not a beautiful way to go since your lips crack and your tongue sometimes enlarges so much it protrudes from the mouth.
It is not a mercy death. It would never be tolerated by SCOTUS or any other court as a means to execute criminals.
Why this is a popular way has less to do with the nature of the means—dehydration—as with the actual human acts in killing someone. That is, rather than an injection or smothering which are active acts, a passive act—withholding fluids seems nicer and easier. Of course, at the bottom of this thinking is clear knowledge of breaking natural law as well as the commandment, “thou shall not murder.” Self-deceit is the backbone of evil.
Would Medicare pay for it either way? They paid for the home hospice care, which was under the auspices of our relgional medical center. Which is not, to the best of my knowledge, a death cult.
“Is that what you call what you did to your own child? Is that what you call what you say you allowed to happen to your own father?
Killing is ugly.”
Your comment seems beyond the pale. Perhaps you should step back and take a deep breath. Or maybe change your screen name, cause you sure don’t sound like an angel here.
“Please explain how having a professional come to your home to help take care of a loved one and ease some of their pain is a part of the culture of death. I’m all ears.
Seconded.”
The crickets are chirping.
People shouldn’t ask questions they don’t want answers to.
Who here is saying that we have a right to health care?
well said, I just hope the pure social conservatives can get on board with us, they tend to be somewhat fickle on economic issues, some even argue for gubermint health ‘for the children’.
Very well said! I wholeheartedly agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.