I dunno – my first question to the alleged victims would be, “What part of Hassidic do you not understand?” I mean, it’s not just about the hats, clothes and funny hairstyles.
My second question would be, “What’s really behind this?”
Part of supporting the patients is using their bargining leverage to get them a better standard of service.
I don’t know about hours, but Blue Cross does have various requirements that thier providers have to meet in order to be able to bill BC for services rendered to thier patients. This isn’t “dictating” so much as bargining to get the best treatment (or more frequently, best price).
I agree. Again, however, I’m not certain that’s whats happening here.
By that logic the government should force every business it does business with to stay open 24/7. That would be playing hardball to get the best service for their customers.
This clinic is not a government agency. It is a private enterprise that accepts Medicare reimbursement. What the NAACP branch is trying to do here is to force their religious beliefs down these Jews’ throats. The clinic is hardly endangering anyone by closing on the Sabbath; there is another emergency room in that community. All the clinic owners are doing is obeying their own faith.
If I come off as vexed, that’s because I am. There is an ugly (and to me, inexplicable) current of anti-Semitism in the black community, and I can’t help but suspect that this complaint is a manifestation of it. “How dare those Jews celebrate the Sabbath on any day other than the one WE do! Those racist bastards!”
And yes, I’ve heard such sentiments voiced among black persons I know personally.
So what? There is a difference between the government requiring certain a person to meet certain criteria before hanging his/her shingle and mandating on what days that person must do business, particularly when that person is making a given choice for religious reasons. Again, the clinic is choosing to forego possible income on principle; they are not preventing anyone from getting needed services.
None of which has anything to do with forcing doctors to work on their day of rest and/or worship. Which days you are open has nothing to do with a “standard of care.” Getting good medical care and not being billed out of proportion to the average is what a standard of care is about.
Likewise, I have no idea what the true motivation is behind this lawsuit, but I don’t think it matters. Even if the religion of the clinic doctors has nothing to do with why they are being sued, it is still religious discrimination to force people to work on a day which their religion says they can’t.
But in the final analysis, the government would be making the decision on whether or not to fund this health care institution because of the religious observance of its staff. It is impossible to separate the issue of being closed on Saturday with the fact that the closure is for a religious reason.
I don’t believe that the government would be justified in pulling funding from such a place simply because the staff has religious obligations – I’m thinking about the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion. In fact, I think it would be an awful precident for religious freedom.
There’s got to be more to this story, one would hope.
I am a Blue Cross-receiving provider in private practice. The standards I have to meet include being qualified and accepted by BCBS for the services for which I bill them, filling out the form correctly, and being subject to audits as they deem necessary. They may choose not to pay for certain diagnostic codes.
They have no idea what my hours are. They have no idea how many hours my business is open. They have no requirement about this. IF I were involved with the HMO, they might require me to be available or have emergency coverage within x number of hours. “Emergency coverage” doesn’t mean that I have to cover, merely that it is clear to my patients who to call in an emergency if I’m not there.
This may differ for an agency, but I want to spell it out because it also may not. BCBS does not dictate most aspects of my business practices.
I was once out at a concert in Chicago’s Uptown neighborhood. We were driving home and there in the middle of the road was a guy who had the living shit kicked out of him (brain matter appeared to be leaking out of his ears). We were right in front of a catholic hospital. Mr. K tended to the guy while I ran (about 10 yards) to the hospital to get help. The door was locked but there was a buzzer box. I assumed that since it was Uptown, this was a necessary security measure. I buzzed and gave them the story, and they said “Sorry…we’re closed.” I’m not sure if a passerby called 911 or if a cop showed up, but private hospitals apparently can make their own hours. Even when it’s life and death.
If they were closed, then it seems likely to me that there were no doctors or nurses present, and the person answering the buzzer was a security guard–and likely to be no more qualified to administer emergency care than yours.
Or maybe it was ringing at the nurse’s station, in which case they would be infinitely more qualified than me.
Either way, if a security guard has been instructed to say “we’re closed” during an emergency situation rather than getting help, it sounds to me like they have free reign to call their hours as they see fit.
And the nurse is at work on a day the hospital is closed because…?
It seems much more likely to me that it was a security guard or other non-medical functionary.
Well, of course. I just read your post as criticizing them for not being open; if that was not your intent, I apologize.
Nurses would be there 24/7 because there are sick people living in the hospital.
However, that is not how the case will be argued. This was the reason I asked about the halachic issue. The NAACP claims that there are enough gentiles employed at the facility to keep it open on Saturday, (a point somewhat supported by the original position of the owners to consider that proposal). Unfortunately, under halacha, it is also the ownership as well as the staff that must refrain from labor and the NAACP is (apparently) going to argue that that is a religious imposition on the community.
I suspect that there is simply a lot more going on, here, and that this is the point where the issue broke into newsworthiness. I know several cliics that have either very limited or no Saturday hours and they are run by gentiles or faceless corporations. It sounds more, to me, as though there may be some personality issues that have erupted into a pissing contest. It is unfortunate that a few chapters of the NAACP have allowed themselves to get into this sort of nonsense, (as have chapters of other advocacy groups that operate on the local level), but stuff happens.
Well, that problem can be solved by having the nurses take more days off.Then the sick people will be DYING at the hospital.
Facetiae: last refuge of the guy who realizes he has no counter-argument.
If it against halachic law to open the business on Saturday, then isn’t that still religious discrimination, though? It seems whatever the religious reasoning is, it still exists, and the government can’t discriminate on that basis.
I agree with you here…I’m sure it’s neighborhood tensions of some sort that has led to this. I do think it’s a real shame that the NAACP gets involved in such pettiness…an organization that is supposed to fight discrimination should really take the idea to heart.
And others have pointed out, there may very well be more than meets the eye here. You know, debate about the priorities of the NAACP might be a good basis for a new thread. Here in my neck of south Louisiana, I see plenty of issues that seem like like appropriate grist for the NAACP mill. The issue they are most vocal about right now, though (with threatened legal action) is their demand that a major road here in town be renamed Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive. The city council has refused because of the claimed hardship of the businesses there, what with changing addresses for advertising, letterheads, and so on. Also, there’s already a street by that name, but it is not a major road.
I understand about fighting for principle, but aren’t there more urgent issues to contend with?
Not all hospitals have emergency services, especially some specialty hospitals. Was there a sign that said “No emergency services available.”?
For example, at my old job, our district had a hospital with no ER. There was nursing staff there 24/7, I’m not sure about doctors, though. Either way, if someone showed up at the door looking for emergency care, someone would call 911. The patient never saw any hospital staff except maybe security.
That may be…but if I was a medical professional and someone told me a guy’s brains were leaking out through his ears, I’d probably have dialed 911 and then gone outside to see if I could help preserve life. I didn’t notice a sign, but I was in a panic so I may have missed it.
If there were qualified medical personnel available inside, I imagine that they would have assisted in some way. All of the medical folks I know are constantly stopping to assist at accidents, dragging kids out of the water while they’re on vacation, and seeing pro bono patients.