this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2025
15 points (94.1% liked)
Louisiana
79 readers
1 users here now
A community for people living in and interested in the state of Louisiana to post news and information.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not saying we should be rasing pay for other employees at all. I'm saying the reason Medicaid is becoming unsustainable is because we have so many CEOs making insanely huge salaries like this.
The point of healthcare is to provide care to patients. Not to create hospital monopolies.
If Medicare is unsustainable that means healthcare cuts.
When you're looking for where you should be making healthcare cuts what makes the most logical sense to you?
At least having a discussion about how these administrative salaries and positions are actually justified?
Or
•Slash and burn policy eliminating doctors that were already accepting Medicaid
•Reducing care offered to patients so that the patients will then indeed become less healthy, rely on emergency services and require more costly care in the long run
•Claiming Medicaid is unsustainable bc "no doctors want to accept Medicaid patients."
If you abruptly eliminate all the doctors that do accept Medicaid and then claim you need to increase the Medicaid budget to incentivise doctors in order to get them to accept Medicaid patients, then yes, by default it becomes easy to make the argument that no doctors in your hospital "want to accept Medicaid."
So maybe we need some legislative action to push for caps on CEO salaries and number of CEO/administrative positions per hospital to receive any federal or state funding.
Why tf does one giant monopoly of hospitals need a CEO for each campus?!
The whole point of having a giant monopoly is that all hospitals are under the same control with the same policy and regulations.
This is not normal.
Then what is the point of having a monopoly control everything in the first place? If every campus needs its own CEO to be making decisions what exactly is the benefit of having LCMC or Oschner controlling all of these hospitals?
It seems like you could be providing better healthcare with less bureaucracy if you just let individual hospitals take care of patients. Especially since most of these hospitals already existed before these companies came in and saved the day by purchasing all of these hospitals.
Great, I'm actually trying to find a new primary care doctor right now.
Tried to call my old office to see if they could help me and it rang and rang until it eventually hung up on me.
Just tried to contact one the main number to make an appointment and got a voicemail telling me to leave briefly message.
Tried to call a third number the nurses help hotline provided me and it rang once and hung up.
I'll probably just end up going to CVS again and using their minute clinic, which actually seems to have a better handle on healthcare at this point than the giant corporation that has purchased every hospital in the area.
But I'm glad we have CEOs at every campus making sure everything runs so smoothly even though there are no doctors available to provide healthcare.
How is a hospital "functioning" if there's nobody there to provide care? That's kind of the whole point of hospitals.
In this case the hospital cannot afford to pay both the salary of CEOs and doctors that provide care.
So cuts have to be made somewhere. You're suggesting the rational thing to do in this case would be to cut the doctors and keep the CEOs so that they can keep lights on in an empty building. That's so crazy it just might work. Problem solved.