Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center CEO Paul Levy gives his initial thoughts on Obama's health-care speech, which posits increased efficiencies can pay for coverage for millions of uninsured people:
... I think this gives a false impression that access to insurance, our highest priority, can be delivered at no additional cost to society. Quite the opposite will take place, as people who previously did not have access to preventative care and diagnostic care will obtain that access. Especially in the short run, this will result in higher costs, not lower costs, to society. ...
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Ehm.
By anonilous
Thu, 09/10/2009 - 1:05am
Didn't the President make it clear that, over ten years, and according to CBO figures, if health care costs are restricted by less than 1%, it pays for itself? Let's be optimistic, as Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and Mr. Rove challenged Americans to be during their folly in Iraqistan, and assume that the under 1% goal is met: it's called a RETURN ON INVESTMENT. A short-term outlay reaps long-term benefits.
In this instance, the immediate costs mean fewer costs in the future: cancers are caught; fatties are put on diets; coronary issues are addressed; degenerative illnesses may be retarded. That will mean immediate preventative/sustaining costs, but it's much better than the future/critical treatment costs.
Mr. Levy should know better. Of course, as someone deriving his salary from a "non-profit" (ahem), he's part of the problem.
Just because he's cultivated an image as a "good" CEO, doesn't mean he's not bad. He's simply marginally better than all the rest of the thieving, corrupt whoremongers working under the auspices of "health care." You know, the ones stepping lockstep to the beat of the message spawned by the profit-based insurance and pharmacutical industries.
Crazy is you. Was there
By anon
Thu, 09/10/2009 - 9:06am
Crazy is you. Was there really any need to post something like this? Please pass the tinfoil hat.
Abolish all private health insurance companies
By Ron Newman
Thu, 09/10/2009 - 1:19am
They are parasitic organizations that siphon money out of the health care system but do not actually provide any useful service to anyone. How much money could we save (and therefore use to finance universal care) by shutting these companies down?
Single-payer?
By Anonymous
Thu, 09/10/2009 - 1:44am
Is that what you're saying?
Are there still employees at Beth Israel who do not receive health insurance coverage or health services as a benefit of employment?
[size=9]www.[color=#FF0000]C[/color][color=#FF9933]O[/color][color=#CC00CC]L[/color][color=#339900]O[/color][color=#3300CC]R[/color] OF CHANGE.org Sign the petition![/size]
3%
By Stevil
Thu, 09/10/2009 - 1:57pm
CNBC reported yesterday that the health care insurance industry as a whole operates on a 3% profit margin - in line with a grocery store. If you have some specifics on how perhaps some funky accounting arrives at that number (or the number is incorrect) - please let us know. I haven't researched it - simply restating the quote.
Key Words
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 09/10/2009 - 10:33am
In the long run, not going to the ER, getting preventative care, getting flu shots (and not losing work time ...), controlling controllable medical situations like diabetes, etc. will mean that we spend much less as a society.
My dad gets regular autonagging from the Kaiser Permanente system to follow up on his various health issues. I somehow don't think that a huge HMO is doing this out of unconditional love or because they just want to spend money on nothing. They do it because regular doctor visits and monitoring and reporting of blood sugar levels means that they SAVE money when he DOESN'T get sick or have to be hospitalized with complications that DIDN'T happen because of the routine care.
Paul Levy is paid $870K for running a charity
By Jonas Prang
Thu, 09/10/2009 - 11:25am
According to the 2007 I-990 (get from [url=www.guidestar.org]Guidestar[/url] with free registration), Paul Levy was paid $870,000 that year (find at bottom of pdf page 28) for running a $1.2 billion dollar charity, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Inc.
Whoa
By FrancescaFordiani
Thu, 09/10/2009 - 11:59am
I'm not sure who you're trying to insult here: Levy, BIDMC, or hospitals and healthcare providers generally. Would you prefer the BI were a for-profit institution? I've worked in the world of for-profit healthcare delivery, and believe me, it's an ugly, ugly business. Return for stockholders is the priority over good patient care and safe working conditions.
If you have a case to make that Levy is overpaid, then please make it, but to reduce running a major hospital to "running a charity" is unfair and unproductive.
Um, no
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 09/10/2009 - 12:09pm
He's running a 1.2 billion dollar corporation. The "non-profit" nature of that corporation doesn't make much difference - it is the size an complexity of the operation. When you consider that he seems to be getting good quality results, has staved of layoffs through some pretty creative and collaborative actions, and has taken a pay cut in the last year, you would be hard pressed to hire anybody of his qualifications for less money.
And there is such a thing as
By anon
Thu, 09/10/2009 - 1:04pm
And there is such a thing as respectable, moral buissiness men.
This whole idea that money is dirty, capitalism is evil, and liberals all need to be earth loving, dirt poor hippies needs to stop. It ain't helping our cause, and isn't getting progressive legislation pushed through one bit.
It's the lefts version of: the government is the ultimate evil, all taxes are bad, liberals are bleeding hearts train of thought on the right.
Stop it, stop being lazy and add something constructive.