You cannot overregulate some things. Hospital safety is one of them. Food safety is another. They are both under fire from Trump. Doctors cry about malpractice. The people they harmed do not.It's a story that has far more to do with the cost of medical providers, equipment, and certification of facilities.
High quality residential / commercial 15 amp receptacle: About $2.00
Same 15 amp receptacle in "hospital" grade: $15.00
That's one tiny detail in building a medical facility. Everything costs 5 to 10 times more to do. The floors have to be hermetically sealed meaning terrazzo or another impervious finish. Everything costs so much more due to government regulations.
Training personnel costs ungodly amounts. For someone to be qualified to draw blood requires an associate's degree now in phlebology. Medical provider insurance is another massive cost due to the propensity for people to file malpractice suits for the slightest of reasons and the availability of lots of lawyers who seek settlements and make a living out of that area of law.
So, some medical facility in the Middle-of-Nowhere (Curtis NE--look at Google Maps) that serves a relative handful of people simply cannot be sustained or justified for the millions it costs to stay open. That's just how it is, and a lot of that has to do with onerous government regulation of the healthcare industry.
Rural MAGA town loses only medical center
- Thread starter Maze
- Start date
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
You can overregulate anything. If you make something so safe it becomes unaffordable, but it is a necessity of life, the result is a decline in the quality of life.
What's hurting smaller self supporting hospitals is one, larger competitors are buying into mergers, and two, upgrading to modern equipment is so expensive.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
In many cases, it's simply the smaller ones can't run at anything close to a profit. The one in question here in Nebraska, is out in the proverbial Middle-of-Nowhere. Look that town up on Google Maps. Let's say it services 2000 people locally and in surrounding small towns. On a 200-day work year it sees roughly 10 patients (non-emergency) a day. That is nothing. How can it keep running, keep the sort of supplies a low-end hospital needs, or even manage staffing when the staff has to be paid close to $100,000 a year per person on average?
It can't. It simply doesn't have the customer base to run at even close to a profit. Medicaid doesn't fix that. There are no payouts to be made that will fix it.
Yet, the Left thinks this medical center should continue to run on altruism. That is, it should run out of the goodness of humanity even as its staff starve due to lack of customers, its bills go unpaid. This is the sort of bullshit the Left is infamous for.
It wasn't the quality of care that contributed to smaller hospital closures. Some of them were bought out by large corporations and they expanded their coverage into networks. Some were left on their own for survival.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Even bigger networks aren't going to keep a perpetual money loser open forever. Curtis is about 30-ish miles from open medical centers in other towns. While this involves a drive it isn't excessive requiring maybe a 30-minute drive or so to get there (most of the roads to do so are posted 65 mph).
I drive to medical center because I'm in a insurance plan network and the local smaller hospital wasn't. It closed, because it as you said, didn't have the clientele and the equipment was outdated.
So you deadbeats have the county raise your taxes and pay for one.
Look up what the term 'rural' means. You gimps think you're entitled to a having a major hospital every two blocks or something?
In other news, it is usually the local fire depts. whose show up first in most small towns and villages in emergencies, also police, and they usually have subsidies to provide EMTS with equipment and training, and most cities have Careflight choppers that get scrambled to the more serious emergencies. they fly around 125-160 mph.
You want to live in the country, expect inconveniences, Duh.
ThatOwlWoman
Not Nice
Do you see a difference between someone like us, who chose to retire to a small town with fewer services/restaurants/doctor specialists/stores, etc. than our former home in St. Louis, and someone who was born here, has family and a home and a decent job, and is happy here? We have the means to move if our hospital suddenly closes up. Others don't. The closest larger city to us with good hospitals and more choice is Green Bay, a four hour drive away.
We like to think America is the best country on Earth. In some ways we are, but when it comes to health care we're often not a lot better than many less-wealthy nations. If it takes taxpayer $$ to provide medical care to our lower-income/rural citizens, we should pony up because we're supposed to all be in this together, right? E pluribus unum and all that.
(R)s have been dying to cut social services for as long as I've been around. Now they're using the fiction that we have to cut Medicaid and other health care because undocumented people are using it. So we harm our own citizens in order to spite some "illegal" residents who we're falsely told are getting something they're not entitled to get.
Tbird19482
Verified User
Who said anything about raising taxes
Who said anything about raising taxed to provide these things?
Having been a volunteer Firemen and a EMT I know what it takes to provide firetrucks and emergency equipment and in this area usually about 60 to 70% of the money needed to purchase these thing are raised by our fire companies , I have been on fund raising drives for longer then you have been alive..
QP!
Verified User
well then i am not really following your question?
In re-reading your prior post it seems you start with a premise that a Potus decision being one of politics "could not hurt Red, Purple and Blue States" and if it hurts all that somehow means it is not politics???? If that is your premise it is wrong.
In this instance the even better question under your wrong assumption would be to ask 'if politics, why would it hurt Red States the worst'?
The answer to all of that is simply because Trump and Co are stupid and know the magats are stupid. So even as Trump harms them worse they will hug his nuts tighter while blaming OTHERS.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
If a doctor harms a patient, this should be criminal, not about money. Money is like honey for flies. While a person harmed by negligence or incompetence should be compensated, that doesn't negate the need for tort reform when it comes to medical lawsuits.
The shutdown is yours.
You have all three branches, and if you really wanted to you could get rid of the 60 vote threshold on continuing resolutions.
ZenMode
Well-known member
As with many things, our disagreement is likely just a matter of degrees. You see a 38-ish minute drive to the hospital as being so unbearable that it necessitates federal government intervention. I don't.
QP!
Verified User
I don't think 'what matters' is what you deem acceptable and is instead the actual data on how it translates to increased deaths and serious lifelong injuries.
I think you reply should instead be to tell us if you are 'OK' with these increased deaths and lifelong injuries and find them acceptable?
---------------
AI Summary:
There’s substantial evidence that greater distance or longer prehospital time is linked to higher mortality, especially for time-sensitive conditions (trauma, cardiac arrest, sepsis, obstetric emergencies). The effect is strongest for emergencies where minutes matter; for less time-sensitive care (routine/chronic care) the evidence is mixed. Below I summarize key findings, give numbers you can use, and list practical policy/clinical implications.
What the research shows — headline findings
- Longer travel distance correlates with higher all-cause mortality in many settings.
Example: a population study found ~1% absolute increase in mortality per 10 km increase in straight-line distance to care. PMC+1 - Longer prehospital time (dispatch → hospital) is associated with higher trauma mortality.
In a cohort study from trauma registries, odds of death rose ~8% for every 10-minute increase in total prehospital time. (I.e., time matters in trauma systems.) JAMA Network+1 - For out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and similarly time-sensitive events, shorter EMS response and shorter scene/transport times improve survival. Several studies and reviews report that each minute of delay increases mortality (varies by study; some report ~2% per minute or other estimates depending on outcome). ScienceDirect+1
- Inter-hospital transfer and longer time to definitive care increase mortality for conditions like sepsis and major hemorrhage. Transferred rural sepsis patients show higher mortality vs those directly at definitive centers. Time to definitive hemostasis is also linked to survival. PMC+1
- For non-urgent, preventive, or chronic care the evidence is mixed. Systematic reviews find associations between greater travel time and reduced utilization of preventive services (antenatal visits, screening) and some poorer outcomes, but restructuring that increases distance hasn’t always shown population-level mortality increases; quality of evidence is variable. BMJ Open+1
Representative quantitative results you can quote
- ~1% absolute increase in mortality per 10 km (population-level study). PMC+1
- ~8% higher odds of death per 10-minute increase in prehospital time (trauma registry cohort). JAMA Network
- Per-minute increases in EMS response/prehospital times have been linked to a few-percent increases in mortality for trauma/OHCA in multiple studies (magnitude varies by condition and study). ScienceDirect+1
cawacko
Well-known member
Hey man if you want a fight have at it but I’m going to peace out.
My question was this. I live in an urban area and I don’t have the lived experience of people in rural towns. From what I’ve read rural communities have struggled with hospitals and clinics for years in red, blue and purple states. That sounds like an economic issue to me. If it is political, then why is it happening in every type of state and not just red ones?
cawacko
Well-known member
That is an emotional statement. You can absolutely overregulate anything, including hospital safety.
If regulations become so costly or onerous that hospitals are forced to close and leave people without care, then people are less safe. The goal is balance. You want to protect patients, but not shut down their access to care.
QP!
Verified User
I am only trying to understand your question and if "understanding" equals a fight, then ..ok, i guess.
YOu seem stuck on a point, that makes no sense to me which is 'if government does something that hurts all areas...it therefore cannot be political'.
I happen to think that point you keep repeating is so deeply flawed it needs to be addressed and either proven or discarded.
For instance Trumps use of tariffs is a political one, and yet they deeply hurt the entire country. The former does not exclude the latter. Do you understand?
Yakuda
Verified User
And?
Whoopsie! FAFO magats
Curtis Medical Center to close after 30 years, citing inflation and uncertain federal funding
Citing inflation over the past few years combined with uncertainty of future federal funding, Community Hospital has made the decision to close Curtis Medical Center.www.knopnews2.com
QP!
Verified User
And that is core Trump country realizing that while Trump enriches himself and his favored Oligarchs at each and every turn with breaks from tariffs and tax cuts he is hurting the poorest in Trump country more than any other citizens in the country.
Over and over every Trump move is attacking the programs and benefits that Trump country relies on more than any other.