MESSAGE
| DATE | 2020-04-30 |
| FROM | aviva
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] Look at thecrazy lock them up speach
|
On 4/30/20 3:14 PM, Carolinedliny wrote:
> I pay through noise for healthcare. while I agree there are an
> extraordinary amount of issues about profit and under-insured
> etc..I'm a breast cancer survivor and I got some good care from
> excellent Drs and nurses who saved my life
No, you got lucky and you paid through the nose for healthcare that
sucks, most of your money going to corporate profits in back offices in
Connecticut and elsewhere. Our healthcare system has been stripped
naked, and that is why there are no ventilators and masks. That is why
hospitals have been closed and others converted to skilled nursing
facilities. That is why is cost $700 for monthly insulin and $400 for
an epipen.
These are no issues, which is how you euphemistically put it. This is
the state of our healthcare system and it cost us a complete shutdown.
https://i2.wp.com/metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/comp-1585226656.png?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=644%2C362&ssl=1
Why has this become urgent? Because they pushed to private care MDs out
of business and then closed dozens of hospitals.
http://bestofhealthindia.com/best-hospitals/list-of-closed-hospitals-in-new-york-city
https://nypost.com/2020/03/17/new-york-has-thrown-away-20000-hospital-beds-complicating-coronavirus-fight/
I loooove this
https://nypost.com/2013/09/09/why-nyc-needs-hospitals-to-close/
It’s painful to see a hospital close its doors for good. Painful for
patients, painful for workers and painful for the community it has long
proudly served. But that pain, and the public outcry that always
accompanies a hospital closure, doesn’t change the fact that sometimes
hospitals simply reach a point where their survival is no longer
financially tenable and their services are no longer essential.
That’s why the highly publicized efforts to save two Brooklyn hospitals
that have struggled for years and are drowning in red ink — Long Island
College Hospital, or LICH, and Interfaith Medical Center — are so misguided.
In addition to ignoring economic reality, the multiple court decisions
and public demonstrations to keep these facilities open do nothing to
improve care and everything to prevent true health-care reform.
Health-care delivery in America is evolving into a system marked by
fewer hospitalizations and more community-based primary care, as well as
myriad public-health innovations. As the decline of LICH and Interfaith
so starkly demonstrate, the time has come for New Yorkers, especially
those in vulnerable, low-income neighborhoods, to overcome their
reliance on hospitals and embrace the rapidly shifting health-care
landscape.
The change has been a long time coming.
In 2005, Gov. George Pataki created the Commission on Health Care
Facilities in the 21st Century — better known as the Berger Commission,
after me, its chairman. As chair, I was tasked with making
recommendations to stabilize, improve and restructure New York’s
health-care delivery system. Our ultimate goal was to begin a series of
difficult steps and decisions to ensure that all New Yorkers have access
to high-quality care.
The commission’s work confirmed what many health-care stakeholders long
knew: New York had more hospital beds and physical plants than it
needed. As our final report noted, “Health-care services are migrating
rapidly out of large institutional settings into ambulatory, home and
community-based settings.”
Our hospital “right-sizing” recommendations included “48
reconfiguration, affiliation and conversion schemes, and 9 facility
closures.” We called for the hospital community to downsize by more than
4,000 beds.
In 2011, as part of Gov. Cuomo’s Medicaid Redesign Team, or MRT,
initiatives, I headed the Brooklyn Health Systems Redesign Workgroup to
assess the strengths and weaknesses of the borough’s hospitals and their
future viability. In a summary letter to the state health commissioner,
I wrote that six Brooklyn hospitals (including LICH and Interfaith) “are
not currently positioned to seize the opportunities and manage the risks
associated with the changes under way at the state and federal levels.”
All the while, hospitals in New York — especially “safety net”
facilities that serve a disproportionate number of Medicaid and
uninsured patients — have been losing money year after year. Too many
New Yorkers were (and still are) using hospital emergency departments
for routine primary care. Medicaid costs were skyrocketing. The system
was rupturing.
We’ve come a long way. Since the Berger Commission formed, 18 hospitals
across the state have closed, including 12 in New York City — yet
health-care access hasn’t worsened.
The Affordable Care Act (a k a ObamaCare) and MRT reforms are helping
New York pursue the “triple aim” of improving population health,
enhancing the patient experience and reducing health-care costs.
As part of this transformation, New York state has requested a 5-year,
$10 billion federal Medicaid waiver to enable hospitals and other
providers to expand primary care and invest in public-health
innovations. Ironically, this will give hospitals the resources to keep
more patients out of their facilities.
Yet we’ve still got a long way to go, as the decline of LICH and
Interfaith make clear. That’s why the developments in Brooklyn are so
counterproductive.
Why are judges and politicians keeping these hospitals open when there’s
no money to operate them? Whatever their motives, they’re ultimately
harming the very communities that LICH and Interfaith can no longer
effectively serve — communities that desperately need more primary care,
not more inpatient beds.
They are also willfully ignoring the fact that Brooklyn and the rest of
New York will always have enough high-quality hospitals to care for the
patients who need them.
Their actions will also have a chilling ripple effect. Other hospitals
on the financial brink will put off necessary downsizing or outright
closure simply to avoid the chaos unfolding in Brooklyn, and healthier
hospitals nearby will be reluctant to step in and help.
It is the human condition to be wary of change, and the loss of a
longtime hospital is certainly an unsettling experience. But New York’s
recent history has shown that allowing hospitals that have outlived
their usefulness to close is a necessary step in the transformation of
our health-care system.
For the good of all New Yorkers, let’s hope that certain judges and
politicians recognize that soon.
Stephen Berger, the chairman of Odyssey Investment Partners, has advised
the city and state on fiscal issues in a series of positions since 1976.
https://indypendent.org/2014/04/nycs-vanishing-hospitals/
https://indypendent.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/hospital%20closings%20map_web_1.jpg
Now here is the best part. The hospitals are now going broke and the
state is out of money? How are you getting paid?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-09/hospital-bankruptcies-leave-sick-and-injured-nowhere-to-go
A quiet crisis is unfolding for U.S. hospitals, with bankruptcies and
closures threatening to leave some of the country’s most vulnerable
citizens without care.
As a gauge of distress in the health-care sector has soared, at least 30
hospitals entered bankruptcy in 2019, according to data compiled by
Bloomberg. They range from Hahnemann University Hospital in downtown
Philadelphia to De Queen Medical Center in rural Sevier County, Arkansas
and Americore Health LLC, a company built on preserving rural hospitals.

There’s more distress to come. Already this week, the bankrupt owner of
St. Vincent Medical Center in Los Angeles said it plans to shut the
facility after a failed sale attempt.
The pressures on the sector are as tangled as the health-care system itself.
Americans are fleeing rural areas in favor of urban centers, reducing
the demand for hospital services in already struggling
On 4/30/20 3:14 PM, Carolinedliny wrote:
> saying that "as soon as they open the public another 25% of the
population will get virus" is same as saying that the stay at home order
did
> prevent the hospitals from being bombarded with 25% more COVID
patients all at once.
That is not how it works. It was a faulty theory to start with. It had
no basis in any model unless you restricted numerous factors which are
impossible to control and which affected real data. The first factor is
that in a city like NYC, in is impossible to lock up all people. First,
people won't do it because they can't. Your asking people to do what
they can not physically do, unless your plan is to put them in sleep
cells, like in 2001 Space Odyssey (and that didn't work out well).
Healthcare workers are dependent on mas transit to get to work. In
communities like Willaimsburg and Borough Park, and the Projects in
Coney Island, apartments are places people put there bunk beds so they
can sleep. With 4 children in a bedroom, and no livingroom, there is no
place for people to be. And then there is homelessness all over the
subway, and grocery stores are packed, especially since there are fewer
of them. Truckers are running supplies all around the city and the
ports are bring in critical supplies. People are interacting
everywhere, just to keep essential supplies running. The city of New
York is interdependent. Have you ever taken Urban studies? When you
have 60 families in a 6 story building in Far Rockaway, that is packing
a lot of people close together... and they are bored to death with
nothing to do. Graffiti is flourishing all though the subway system
now, it looks like the 1970's. Beverly Rd, Cortelyou, etc etc are all
painted up. You can not just stuff people in there homes and expect
them to sit there.
Honestly, I am not sure why I have to even say this. We all know this.
You know this and I know this, and it is not really a point of
contention. But the truth is, those that are proponents of social
distancing are flat earthers.
Then there is mutation rates and non-human reservoirs. These blow up
the models completely. And they never account for bounce back.
People are going to travel to excess as soon as the restrictions are
lifted. That will both spread the virus and cause new reservoirs of
victims to enter the city.
Now, as you get closer to saturation in immunity, you have increasing
resistance to transmission. the first 10% of the population is easy,
and then the virus finds it harder to spread from there as immunity
increases and this is a experiential property, just like the rate of
spread. But locking everyone up makes for pristine pockets of
unaffected people where the disease spreads like it does on a fresh
population.
In the end though, nothing will stop the spread of second or third
wave. there has never been an epidemic without second and third waves.
No responsible model prevents this. Its like saying, since it rained
this week, it will not rain next week... UM no. It will rain next week,
at least in NY. It is a property of the climate.
The studies are showing that we've likely had this virus in NYC since
November. We are saturated. Personally, I don't think we "flattened
the cure" at all and they are are all full of shit. they are constantly
surprised at the numbers we are seeing, because there models are not
predicting events at all.
_______________________________________________
Hangout mailing list
Hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout
|
|
