444
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2024
444 points (99.6% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2409 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
How are you getting $95 an hour?
Their asshole
3.5 hours of nurse care per resident per day (from the bill).
Resident pays $120K per year to stay at the facility.
There are 365*3.5 hours in a year they need nursing care = 1277 hours of nursing care per year per client.
$120K per year / 1277 hours per year = $94/ hr maximum cost for each nurse - assuming there are no other expenses for the facility.
Must have mistyped to get $95, but that is the math.
Okay, now I understand what you meant by maximum cost. It should be noted that the nurses will likely be paid closer to $30 / hour, give or take depending on the area.
The $94/hr isn't a salary, it's the cost to the business. Employees generally cost a business 1.3-1.5X their salary - since insurance, payroll taxes, PTO, etc. all also need to be paid for.
Again this is not considering any other cost for the facility: utilities, food, other staff, medical equipment, maintenance, insurance, rent...
I'm not worried about their profits tbh. Nursing homes had total net revenues of $126 billion and a profit of $730 million (0.58%) in 2019. They can afford to staff properly and fairly and still make a disgusting amount of profit.
That is an insanely small margin, and directly contradicts your claim that they can staff properly.
Let's take the entire profit for the industry and hire nurses. Let's say reach nurse costs $80K ( $60K salary, $20K for taxes/insurance/other benefits).
That pays for 9600 more nurses. Which, given the nursing requirements in the bill (3.48 hours per day per resident), only covers staffing for 22K residents.. a rounding error to the more than 1.2 million nursing home residents in the country.
There are ~15K nursing homes in the US, each of them getting 0.6 more nurses doesn't help anything.
I'm no economist, but if the business can't afford to perform its function (such as a care home taking care of its residents) then the business shouldn't exist.
And that is a valid opinion. Unfortunately what do you do with all these people if the homes close because they can't afford staff?
The intent of the bill is to prevent neglect in nursing homes - that is a worthy and important goal. The mandate doesn't actually help make that happen.
It doesn't provide funding the care providers to increase staff, it doesn't add incentives for individuals to get certified and help address the personnel shortage, it doesn't put a cap on administrative costs for care facilities, it doesn't actually DO anything to help solve the problem.
Good mandates also provide an avenue to meet them.
The government is already providing funding, this just makes that funding dependent on having enough staff.
If a business needs the government to hold its hand every step of the way to be successful then it should be a government facility instead of a private business.
We get it, you don't like nursing homes.
You don't seem to be engaging with the substance of the matter, so I'll leave it here.
I like nursing homes. I don't like nursing homes that don't take care of their residents.
That is the substance of the matter here. I don't care how profitable the business is if the residents aren't being properly cared for.
The businesses are hardly profitable. For every dollar they get from housing a resident, they get just above half a penny of profit.
As I showed above, you can take the entire profit and put it into hiring more staff and it won't actually make a difference. They either need to raise prices, cut costs elsewhere (maybe administration? I'm not familiar enough to know), or pay people less.
That's what the numbers say.
Again: I don't find the argument "we can't take proper care of our residents because it's not profitable" to be compelling.
No one seems to be arguing that the care being asked for is unnecessary, just that it's expensive. And in that case I just don't care.
Again, it doesn't matter whether you find the argument about compelling.
If care cannot be provided profitably, it won't be provided at all. That is reality. Somehow, the care must be paid for.
Those who need care are not better off if these facilities close.