Hospitals That Do The Right Thing

[Free Indeed]

Several Colorado hospitals are announcing that Aurora shooting victims will not be charged for medical treatments:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...6pLid%3D184191

[Reynolds357]

Is that really the right thing? Most of the hospitals around here are government subsidized. When they give away medical care, they are indirectly taking money out of the public treasury. If the hospital is private, I applaud them. If it is public, I personally have an issue with them doing this.
Hospitals have never done anything for me. I was almost killed on duty and they were sending me past due notices and had bill collectors calling me. My un-regenerated man came out when I called the hospital administrator and spoke to him in a less than kind tone. They did all this done with the knowledge that it was workmans comp and the County, not me, was liable for the payment.

[Free Indeed]

Hospitals have never done anything for me. I was almost killed on duty and they were sending me past due notices and had bill collectors calling me. My un-regenerated man came out when I called the hospital administrator and spoke to him in a less than kind tone. They did all this done with the knowledge that it was workmans comp and the County, not me, was liable for the payment.

It's just capitalism, bro. Don't take it personally.

[tango]

Several Colorado hospitals are announcing that Aurora shooting victims will not be charged for medical treatments:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...6pLid%3D184191

It does sound like a grand gesture but raises all sorts of ethical questions.

Someone has to pay the bill, so if the victims aren't charged someone else will be. Whether that's directly or indirectly (e.g. increased fees for everyone else) someone will pay. If the doctors have decided to do the work for no fee that's great. But even then it raises other questions. Why is it "the right thing" to offer treatment at no cost to one group and not another group? Is, for example, a three-year-old with leukaemia any less deserving of treatment than someone shot as they went about their business?

[ChristianCoffee]

Is, for example, a three-year-old with leukaemia any less deserving of treatment than someone shot as they went about their business?

This is something we have discussed here at the hospital that I work with. While it will draw headlines, and make a community look good, it can also just be a "write off" for goods and services. Unless, as you say here:

If the doctors have decided to do the work for no fee that's great.

But even then, it can and most likely will, come back to bite them because it is showing favoritism.

[Reynolds357]

It's just capitalism, bro. Don't take it personally.

I didn't. I took it that I was simply a number in a computer. When I got ahold of the administrator, he forever had a face to go with that number.

[Amos_with_goats]

I am always amazed at how many ways there are to view an action / event.

People are interesting, no?

[aftertheflood]

There are two main things at work here. The first is that there have been significant monies donated to offset the cost(s) of the treatment. This allowed the hospitals to pull a PR move and appeal to the emotional response of the people here in Colorado to this incident. With all the relief funds set up for wounded individuals and direct donations to the hospitals specifically to benefit the victims the final costs to the hospitals will be minimal relatively speaking.

[tango]

But even then, it can and most likely will, come back to bite them because it is showing favoritism.

Favouritism isn't necessarily an issue where a private business is concerned. If the business is legally allowed to vary its prices then there's no obvious reason why it shouldn't choose to partially or fully waive a fee at any time. The supermarket that gives its millionth customer their shopping for free isn't showing favouritism against the 999,999th customer or the 1,000,001st customer.

There could potentially be issues if the doctors only gave free treatment to groups in ways that were legally deemed to be discriminatory but "victims of this particular shooter" are presumably going to be a random cross-section of the community.

[tango]

There are two main things at work here. The first is that there have been significant monies donated to offset the cost(s) of the treatment. This allowed the hospitals to pull a PR move and appeal to the emotional response of the people here in Colorado to this incident. With all the relief funds set up for wounded individuals and direct donations to the hospitals specifically to benefit the victims the final costs to the hospitals will be minimal relatively speaking.

If it's funded by donations then the hospital is potentially not doing anything unusual at all, just billing its services to a central fund set up for the purpose instead of the individual victims.

[Reynolds357]

Favouritism isn't necessarily an issue where a private business is concerned. If the business is legally allowed to vary its prices then there's no obvious reason why it shouldn't choose to partially or fully waive a fee at any time. The supermarket that gives its millionth customer their shopping for free isn't showing favouritism against the 999,999th customer or the 1,000,001st customer.

There could potentially be issues if the doctors only gave free treatment to groups in ways that were legally deemed to be discriminatory but "victims of this particular shooter" are presumably going to be a random cross-section of the community.

Most hospitals accept govt. subsidies. Our local hospital is given part of the Special local option sales tax and is given 1mill (not million; a mill works out to much more than a million) in property tax.

[Reynolds357]

If it's funded by donations then the hospital is potentially not doing anything unusual at all, just billing its services to a central fund set up for the purpose instead of the individual victims.

If they do that and give credit to donations, that is fine. If they take credit and say they are simply not charging, that is a lie.

[Watchman]

Whether the action is right or wrong is arguable. Saying not charging these victims is the right thing to do is simply an opinion. The action of the hospitals is a grand gesture...but someone will wind up paying the tab. Medical supplies, medications, and salaries etc., are not gotten for free simply because hospital administrators say there will be no charge to the victims. Perhaps some of the doctors can afford to work pro bono here and there, but most everyone else cannot. Is this a good thing to do...helping these victims? Absolutely. Is it THE right thing to do...not necessarily.

[tango]

If they do that and give credit to donations, that is fine. If they take credit and say they are simply not charging, that is a lie.

Oh yes, hence if the hospital is billing as normal but billing a fund set up rather than the individual victims they aren't doing anything unusual at all. If they billed their normal rates to a centrally set up fund but claimed they weren't charging that would be a lie. If they said they weren't charging the victims that would be technically true on the basis the victims weren't paying anything but to make out that they are giving free treatment would clearly not be true.