An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Carter and Hamas

Rice: Playground Diplomacy on al-Sadr »

Health Care: N.J. Democrats Straightjacket Themselves Over A Hospital Closing Crisis

Posted by SHAUN MULLEN, TMV Columnist in At TMV.
Apr 21st, 2008 | Comments

St. Joseph’s in Paterson would lose millions for charity care under Governor Corzine plan that would force some hospitals to close.

There is no question that America’s health-care system is in crisis and that extends to all 50 states. But if you want to see where U.S. hospitals may find themselves sooner or later, consider the number of hospitals in New Jersey that have closed or are on life support and how Democratic politicians have put themselves in a straightjacket that is exacerbating this perilous situation.

New Jersey, the most densely populated and second wealthiest state, had 112 hospitals 20 years ago. Today it has 74 after six closed in the last 18 months. Meanwhile, four others have announced plans to close and five filed for bankruptcy protection, with about half of the others losing money like an ER patient hemorrhaging blood because of gunshot wounds.

Hospitals should be no more immune to the effects of bad business practices than any other enterprise, and indeed some of the closings are the result of lousy management, including a failure to remain competitive, as the industry lurches away from community-based facilities to those where making profits for shareholders trump all other concerns.

New Jersey hospitals are not merely just another business, but are the key component of a health-care system that is deeply stressed because of, among other things, a growing nursing shortage, rapacious insurance companies and an economy that has forced more people to rely on hospitals because they cannot afford to go to family physicians for even the simplest ailments.

But the biggest reason for New Jersey’s hospital crisis is that the state is cutting way back on funding for them.

Please click here to read more at Kiko’s House.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

superdestroyer

There are 74 hospitals in New Jersey. How many are not-for-profit and how many are for profit? Does the 74 count mental health facilities, limited cardiac care facilities, or just places that have emergency rooms?

What percentage of the nurses, physicians, and other medical professional in New Jersey work at for-profit companies that have share holders.

If you are going to make a claim for a huge new tax increase instead of moving funds from other state programs, at least you could fact check your own editorial.

GeorgeSorwell

I never thought I'd say this, but Superdestroyer has a good point: Programs have to be paid for, somehow.

People demand low taxes. At the same time, people demand an increasing number of government-paid services.

Something has to give.

I'm no expert in New Jersey politics or policy. But I do know that at the national level, there's a party that cuts taxes while at the same time running an endless war and creating the biggest entitlement program since Medicare.

Maybe Corzine is just facing reality.

superdestroyer

georgeSorwell,

To take the position that only tax increases can fix the healthcare problem, you are operating under the premise that every government program in New Jersey is more important that helping health care. I propose that government should look through their own programs first and find additional funds. However, the special interest are probably too entrench to give up unnecessary programs to give more funds for healthcare.

GeorgeSorwell

Superdestroyer--

Where am I saying that only tax increases can fix the healthcare problem?

My complaint is that Republicans cut taxes (very popular) while also increasing spending (also very popular). If Republicans were actually cutting spending while cutting taxes, they'd be fiscally responsible. Instead, they are the complete opposite--fiscally irresponsible.

You know what else is popular? Blaming vague unnamed entrenched special interests.

DLS

There is no "crisis" [sic; leftist BS]. Grow up, please. Thanks in advance. There is merely dysfunctionality, in this case compounded by government idiocy.

* * *

"People demand low taxes. At the same time, people demand an increasing number of government-paid services."

Please be aware that it's almost never the same "people" doing both at once.

This is nothing new. I saw it in California (where I grew up) before I left years ago and it's not surprising it's happening in New Jersey (and in less-populous areas such as, say, Maine north of Augusta).

superdestroyer

GeorgeSorwell ,

Yes, The Republicans have been fiscally irresponsible but that is why they will soon be irrelevant to politics in the U.S. The country really only needs one big spending political party.

However, the Democratic party keeps selling increased spending as a good thing because others (read rich whites) will be the one really paying the taxes. Then when taxes do go up people get made at the Democrats.

runasim

NJ is a mess.
Corizine is trying to make people face up to realities, but they beat him up for his efforts.

Just one factor. Towns and townships insist on having their own fire and police departments, creating duplication of overhead costs many times over.
Real estate taxes are sky high, but no one wants to give up their wasteful ;rights; to justify lowering them. They want the state to cover their red ink, instead. no matter what causes the ink to be red.

Closing hispitals is just the beginning of NJ's looming troubles. .

runasim

SD -

I don't think you can analyze fiscal matters with simplistic formulas.
There is wasteful spending and wise spending.

Part of spending is investment in the future. Just like you can't make money in the stock market without investing in it, you can't create a healthy economy without investing in it. That means investing in education to provide the necessary personnel (scientists, doctors, etc.), in infrastucture to make business possible, and in health care to make sure we have a healthy, productive work force.
It makes not sense to talk about spending as if it was all one thing.

When we incur a cost, however, we have to face paying -the bill. It's no use hiding the cost of the war in supplementals and deferrals. The cost is real and so should be paying the bill.

The same fs true for taxes.
A landlord needs to collect enough revenues to cover the costs of owning and operating a building. . How much he should charge as rent depends on his costs and the profit factor. The profit margin can be varied, but the cost can not. Repairs cost what they cost.
The landlord can not lower rents 'on principle' , he has to be reality based.

Cutting taxes, similarly, makes no sense, if the cuts are not reality based.

What we need, therefore is a wise balance, not abstract formulas that have no
bearing on conditions as we find them. "Taxing' and "spending' are just empty words and meaningless political slogans, unless you are disussing a specific case in a specific circumstnace.

superdestroyer

runasim,

If government spending is prioritized by what politicians can justify as programs that will pay for themselves like education, they will eventually being taxing everyone at 110%. Politicians will always find ways to justify huge spending increases. What people need to do is to learn that the government cannot supply everything and force political leaders to really determine what is the most cost beneficial and only fund those programs.

A good example is that virtually every state government has a minority set aside program where certain minorities get contracts without being the lowest bidder. A minority set aside program is a clear signal that government has more than enough money but choose to spend it in unwise ways. Alternative schools is another example. Instead of expelling disruptive, violent students, schools created programs to employ a huge number of teachers, social workers, and program coordinators.

Another problem is that politicians get more credit for starting new programs instead of trying to make existing programs work. Thus, state and local governments increase spending by having multiple programs that do the same thing.

I also wonder if in states like New Jersey, the state government is more of a jobs program and a delivery system for services.

GeorgeSorwell

What people need to do is to learn that the government cannot supply everything and force political leaders to really determine what is the most cost beneficial and only fund those programs.

That would be the sensible thing.

But the popular thing is to cut taxes while increasing spending and while also loudly complaining that it's your political opponents who can't be trusted with the pocketbook.

blog comments powered by Disqus