Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 66
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    RTR/WDE
    Posts
    1,724

    Default Re: Liability Trivia - Truck Driver Collides with Dangerously Low Hanging Wire

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    Gee, if only he hadn’t blocked me he would know what makes a hospital accept indigent patients.

    does everybody know that Brian57 just proved he has absolutely no idea what he’s taking about? A nonprofit hospital actually can and needs to make profit. The fact is they fall under the tax codes a tax exempt based on following the rules the irs laws impose...

    and that isn’t that they cannot make profit.
    How do they pay their employees, utilities and rents/mortgages/leases if they don't make a profit?

    I'll bring olives and add those to free9man's fruit and cheese table.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Liability Trivia - Truck Driver Collides with Dangerously Low Hanging Wire

    Quote Quoting BooRennie
    View Post
    How do they pay their employees, utilities and rents/mortgages/leases if they don't make a profit?

    I'll bring olives and add those to free9man's fruit and cheese table.
    Those come from income or earnings and if you spend all of your incme you would literally have “no profit” but nonprofit hospitals are allowed to make actual “we can put this is the bank” profit.

    From a Forbes article

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele.../#77f953e936b2

    A
    study published in the May issue of Health Affairs revealed that in 2013, seven of the top ten most profitable hospitals in the United States were nonprofit hospitals, with each earning over $163 million in profits from patient care

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    236

    Default Re: Liability Trivia - Truck Driver Collides with Dangerously Low Hanging Wire

    Quote Quoting BooRennie
    View Post
    How do they pay their employees, utilities and rents/mortgages/leases if they don't make a profit?

    I'll bring olives and add those to free9man's fruit and cheese table.
    Oh, you are one of the one-way glass boys too.

    I can tell because your first comment shows you do not know what profit is. Adios!

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Liability Trivia - Truck Driver Collides with Dangerously Low Hanging Wire

    Pretty soon Brian will be talking to himself yet everybody else will be having a good laugh at him all on his own thread.

    Dont feel bad boorennie. Brian has proven he doesn’t know much about anything

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,238

    Default Re: Liability Trivia - Truck Driver Collides with Dangerously Low Hanging Wire

    Quote Quoting Brian57
    View Post
    There are many interviews with Dr Smith online. I have listened to about three hours of them. I cannot summarize them to anyone's satisfaction. You'll have to listen to them yourself. However he is a pioneer in what he is disclosing about that cozy relationship.
    Forgive me, but I've not got the time to listen/view hours of his interviews to try to find what part of it is that you are discussing here. Even if I did, it would be guesswork on my part as to exactly what statements of his you are relying upon. If you can point me to the exact spot where he discusses it on a YouTube video or something similar I may look at that.

    I have no doubt that hospitals are organized in significant part to benefit the doctors who organize and run them. The medical profession has a very effective lobby in that regard. But they do not get everything they ask for. They certainly are not getting special tax deductions that are not available to other corporations and businesses. Indeed, tax exempt hospitals do not need to worry about income tax deductions anyway as they pay no tax on the income that is related to their exempt purpose.


    Quote Quoting Brian57
    View Post
    I do not know what makes a hospitals accept indigent patients but from what Dr Smith says, he goes into detail about what I see a pure corruption.
    There are two federal rules that come into play for hospitals here, neither of which by themselves is at all corrupt. The first is a rule that applies to all hospitals, both exempt and nonexempt. Under a federal law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTLA), an emergency room must examine all patients who come there to determine if they have an Emergency Medical Condition (EMC). If they do have an EMC, the act requires that the “hospital must provide either—
    (A) within the staff and facilities available at the hospital, for such further medical examination and such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition, or
    (B) for transfer of the individual to another medical facility in accordance with subsection (c).”

    Subsection (c) limits the circumstances in which the hospital may transfer the patient to another medical facility prior to the point that the patient’s condition is stablized. The hospital must do these things regardless of the patient’s ability to pay.

    The Act is predicated on the notion that we do not want patients with a EMC to be denied treatment (and possibly die or suffer serious harm as a result) for inability to pay or while a hospital verifies ability to pay. It also serves to prevent private hospitals from dumping patients who cannot pay to city/county hospitals and thus overburdening those facilities and imposing on them the costs of care for the most seriously ill/wounded patients. While one might disagree with that policy (though I see no problem with it) I certainly don't think anyone could fairly characterize that as “corrupt.”

    BTW a number of states also have laws that prevent emergency rooms from turning away patients needing true emergency care. Your own state of California is one of them. California Health and Safety Code 1317(a) & (b) states:

    (a) Emergency services and care shall be provided to any person requesting the services or care, or for whom services or care is requested, for any condition in which the person is in danger of loss of life, or serious injury or illness, at any health facility licensed under this chapter that maintains and operates an emergency department to provide emergency services to the public when the health facility has appropriate facilities and qualified personnel available to provide the services or care.

    (b) In no event shall the provision of emergency services and care be based upon, or affected by, the person’s ethnicity, citizenship, age, preexisting medical condition, insurance status, economic status, ability to pay for medical services, or any other characteristic listed or defined in subdivision (b) or (e) of Section 51 of the Civil Code, except to the extent that a circumstance such as age, sex, preexisting medical condition, or physical or mental disability is medically significant to the provision of appropriate medical care to the patient.

    The second part of federal law that is relevant here applies to hospitals that are tax exempt under IRC 501(c)(3). In order to get that exemption the hospital has to show that it is organized “exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.” Of course, it is the charitable purpose that tax exempt hospitals fit under. That means the hospital must show that it organized for the purpose of providing care to the needy, and to do that the hospital has to provide significant services to indigent persons free or at low cost. They are allowed to charge more to persons who are not indigent to come up with some of the money they use to provide that care. But providing that care for the poor must be the focus of what they do to get tax exemption. This rule does not force any hospital to provide that indigent care. Rather, that is simply what the hospital has to do to get tax exemption. If it doesn't want tax exemption then this won't the hospital to provide any free care. The intent here is that organizations that are providing a public benefit, like charitable health care, should not be taxed on their income because they are relieving the government of that burden and because taxing their income would leave the organization less with which to carry out that charitable goal. Thus the law itself on this I think is noble and, in any event, not corrupt.

    Now one of the knocks on exempt hospitals is that for the most part they look and operate much like the for profit ones do. Most people looking at the hospitals in their cities would be hard pressed to know which ones were tax exempt as charities and which ones aren't. They don't act like a lot of people might expect a charity to act. It is fair to question just how “charitable” some of these hospitals are.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    RTR/WDE
    Posts
    1,724

    Default Re: Liability Trivia - Truck Driver Collides with Dangerously Low Hanging Wire

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    Those come from income or earnings and if you spend all of your incme you would literally have “no profit” but nonprofit hospitals are allowed to make actual “we can put this is the bank” profit.

    From a Forbes article

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele.../#77f953e936b2
    Oh, but you didn't say if you were talking gross profit or net profit. I assumed gross.

    Quote Quoting Brian57
    View Post
    Oh, you are one of the one-way glass boys too.

    I can tell because your first comment shows you do not know what profit is. Adios!
    Gross or net?

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    24,521

    Default Re: Liability Trivia - Truck Driver Collides with Dangerously Low Hanging Wire

    While not a hospital (we do have our own medical center), I work for an organization that is tax exempt under IRC 501(c)(3). It is also one of the wealthiest universities in the world. But we'll never know how Brian feels about that since I forgot to turn my Online signal back on once my stalker was stopped nearly a decade ago and evidently that means I'm not allowed to answer questions here.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    236

    Default Re: Liability Trivia - Truck Driver Collides with Dangerously Low Hanging Wire

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    Forgive me, but I've not got the time to listen/view hours of his interviews to try to find what part of it is that you are discussing here. Even if I did, it would be guesswork on my part as to exactly what statements of his you are relying upon. If you can point me to the exact spot where he discusses it on a YouTube video or something similar I may look at that.

    I have no doubt that hospitals are organized in significant part to benefit the doctors who organize and run them. The medical profession has a very effective lobby in that regard. But they do not get everything they ask for. They certainly are not getting special tax deductions that are not available to other corporations and businesses. Indeed, tax exempt hospitals do not need to worry about income tax deductions anyway as they pay no tax on the income that is related to their exempt purpose.




    There are two federal rules that come into play for hospitals here, neither of which by themselves is at all corrupt. The first is a rule that applies to all hospitals, both exempt and nonexempt. Under a federal law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTLA), an emergency room must examine all patients who come there to determine if they have an Emergency Medical Condition (EMC). If they do have an EMC, the act requires that the “hospital must provide either—
    (A) within the staff and facilities available at the hospital, for such further medical examination and such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition, or
    (B) for transfer of the individual to another medical facility in accordance with subsection (c).”

    Subsection (c) limits the circumstances in which the hospital may transfer the patient to another medical facility prior to the point that the patient’s condition is stablized. The hospital must do these things regardless of the patient’s ability to pay.

    The Act is predicated on the notion that we do not want patients with a EMC to be denied treatment (and possibly die or suffer serious harm as a result) for inability to pay or while a hospital verifies ability to pay. It also serves to prevent private hospitals from dumping patients who cannot pay to city/county hospitals and thus overburdening those facilities and imposing on them the costs of care for the most seriously ill/wounded patients. While one might disagree with that policy (though I see no problem with it) I certainly don't think anyone could fairly characterize that as “corrupt.”

    BTW a number of states also have laws that prevent emergency rooms from turning away patients needing true emergency care. Your own state of California is one of them. California Health and Safety Code 1317(a) & (b) states:

    (a) Emergency services and care shall be provided to any person requesting the services or care, or for whom services or care is requested, for any condition in which the person is in danger of loss of life, or serious injury or illness, at any health facility licensed under this chapter that maintains and operates an emergency department to provide emergency services to the public when the health facility has appropriate facilities and qualified personnel available to provide the services or care.

    (b) In no event shall the provision of emergency services and care be based upon, or affected by, the person’s ethnicity, citizenship, age, preexisting medical condition, insurance status, economic status, ability to pay for medical services, or any other characteristic listed or defined in subdivision (b) or (e) of Section 51 of the Civil Code, except to the extent that a circumstance such as age, sex, preexisting medical condition, or physical or mental disability is medically significant to the provision of appropriate medical care to the patient.

    The second part of federal law that is relevant here applies to hospitals that are tax exempt under IRC 501(c)(3). In order to get that exemption the hospital has to show that it is organized “exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.” Of course, it is the charitable purpose that tax exempt hospitals fit under. That means the hospital must show that it organized for the purpose of providing care to the needy, and to do that the hospital has to provide significant services to indigent persons free or at low cost. They are allowed to charge more to persons who are not indigent to come up with some of the money they use to provide that care. But providing that care for the poor must be the focus of what they do to get tax exemption. This rule does not force any hospital to provide that indigent care. Rather, that is simply what the hospital has to do to get tax exemption. If it doesn't want tax exemption then this won't the hospital to provide any free care. The intent here is that organizations that are providing a public benefit, like charitable health care, should not be taxed on their income because they are relieving the government of that burden and because taxing their income would leave the organization less with which to carry out that charitable goal. Thus the law itself on this I think is noble and, in any event, not corrupt.

    Now one of the knocks on exempt hospitals is that for the most part they look and operate much like the for profit ones do. Most people looking at the hospitals in their cities would be hard pressed to know which ones were tax exempt as charities and which ones aren't. They don't act like a lot of people might expect a charity to act. It is fair to question just how “charitable” some of these hospitals are.
    I never thought hospitals were corrupt because they are forced to take all patients. I feel the industry is corrupt for many other reasons such as: They have misleading billing that makes a patient think that their insurance company negotiated a price down when actually they negotiated to pay the highest price. Doctors learn which insurance companies pay the highest per procedure and will only work for them. That insurance companies want to pay the highest price and Dr Smith goes into detail on how that is. That there is a cozy relationship between insurance companies and hospitals explained in full detail by Dr Smith. That the building of new healthcare facilities is very political and restricted by hospitals, limiting competition. The kickbacks for the fake billing process. Their tax exempt status when their profit is through the roof. It goes on and on.

    It is all spelled out in great detail. But if you don't have time to learn about it...well maybe you aren't really that interested in the subject. Not like I am. Also, I am not the best person to explain it, therefore I am not the person you should be responding to. If you are interested enough to respond to this post then you should be interested enough to watch Dr Smith and respond to what he says.

    I am self employed and I pay double for my insurance over the average person who gets their insurance through their employer. So the whole subject is a sore spot for me which is why I can listen to Dr Smith expose that corrupt industry for hours. People who get their insurance through their employer could usually care less because The ACA hardly affected them. Of course this is an overgeneralization but I don't know anyone who has been as screwed as I am. Nor do I know anyone who has been self employed for 25 years and has assets to protect with health insurance.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    4,301

    Default Re: Liability Trivia - Truck Driver Collides with Dangerously Low Hanging Wire

    Quote Quoting Brian57
    View Post
    I never thought hospitals were corrupt because they are forced to take all patients. I feel the industry is corrupt for many other reasons such as: They have misleading billing that makes a patient think that their insurance company negotiated a price down when actually they negotiated to pay the highest price. Doctors learn which insurance companies pay the highest per procedure and will only work for them.
    My state which boarders Dr. Smith's state is almost monopolistic when it comes to which company employer buy health insurance from. I'm not going to say who that company is but if it isn't cloudy where you are and look at the sky and you will have a pretty good idea.

    Doctors of all flavors can pretty much not do business in my state unless they are in that company's network and I've seen many a bill and EOB for care in the state and I can guarantee you prices that company negotiates for ARE far below the highest price.

    You might want to do your own research instead of getting all your info from a guy that has a vested interest in subject and is pushing a different business model.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Liability Trivia - Truck Driver Collides with Dangerously Low Hanging Wire

    Quote Quoting Brian57
    View Post
    I never thought hospitals were corrupt because they are forced to take all patients. I feel the industry is corrupt for many other reasons such as: They have misleading billing that makes a patient think that their insurance company negotiated a price down when actually they negotiated to pay the highest price. Doctors learn which insurance companies pay the highest per procedure and will only work for them. That insurance companies want to pay the highest price and Dr Smith goes into detail on how that is. That there is a cozy relationship between insurance companies and hospitals explained in full detail by Dr Smith. That the building of new healthcare facilities is very political and restricted by hospitals, limiting competition. The kickbacks for the fake billing process. Their tax exempt status when their profit is through the roof. It goes on and on.

    It is all spelled out in great detail. But if you don't have time to learn about it...well maybe you aren't really that interested in the subject. Not like I am. Also, I am not the best person to explain it, therefore I am not the person you should be responding to. If you are interested enough to respond to this post then you should be interested enough to watch Dr Smith and respond to what he says.

    I am self employed and I pay double for my insurance over the average person who gets their insurance through their employer. So the whole subject is a sore spot for me which is why I can listen to Dr Smith expose that corrupt industry for hours. People who get their insurance through their employer could usually care less because The ACA hardly affected them. Of course this is an overgeneralization but I don't know anyone who has been as screwed as I am. Nor pdo I know anyone who has been self employed for 25 years and has assets to protect with health insurance.
    Uh oh. It sounds like taxing matters may be slated to be added to Brian’s dreaded ignored list.

    It’s too bad Brian has such a closed mind and has fallen prey to that doctors claims.


    i think I found a lot of Brian’s problems;

    “i do nkt know anyone who has been self employed for 25 years and has assets to protect with health insurance”

    taken as written is would mean he has no self worth. The assets med insurance protects is ones own health so if one has no assets to protect with health insurance, it would mean he feels he isn’t worth protecting

    im pretty sure that isn’t what he meant. I suspect he meant purchase rather than protect. If that is correct, it explains a lot. It is stating that although he has worked for himself for 25 years, he hasn’t been financially successful. It’s too bad Brian isn’t good enough at what he does to become financially successful.

    Rather than figuring out how to be successful, Brian seems to have gone the route of blaming everybody else for his failure. That is the typical target and willing recipient of bs conspiracy theorists. I wonder if Brian is helping that dr Smith be more financially successful by buying some dvds the good doc is hawking.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Foreclosure: Maximizing Time Prior to Foreclosure
    By NeedinHelp in forum Buying, Selling and Conveying Real Estate
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-27-2013, 08:03 AM
  2. Retirement Benefits: Maximizing Surviving Spousal Benefits
    By shiflerg in forum Social Security Law
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-10-2008, 07:08 PM
  3. Removal (Deportation) and Reentry: Can I Gain Re-Entry to the USA?
    By dcwheeler in forum Immigration Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-07-2008, 06:43 PM
  4. Speeding Tickets: Impact Of Officer's Notes, and Maximizing Traffic School Eligibility
    By citationrecipient in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-30-2008, 08:21 PM
  5. Assault & Battery: Maximizing the Penalty for Domestic Violence
    By TN Grammy in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-28-2006, 08:04 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources