Here in the Dallas-Fort Worth area where I live, the Ebola outbreak is very much a local issue. Playing tennis with some buddies this morning, I remarked during a break: "can you imagine what a disaster this Ebola thing must be for Texas Presbyterian? Who's going to want to go there? The whole hospital could go out of business!"
Pretty obvious, no? It would be akin to the financial disaster that would befall a restaurant if someone who dined there died of food poisoning. Well, obvious to you and me, perhaps. But not to Ed Schultz. On his MSNBC show this afternoon, Schultz repeatedly blamed the profit motive for the hospital's shortcomings.
Ask yourself--or Ed if you get the chance--who is more likely to held responsible for a screw-up: the head of a for-profit business or that of a government agency?
For that matter, is Schultz sure that Texas Presbyterian is a for-profit hospital? The finances of hospitals can be considerably complex, but the hospital is part of the Texas Health Resources system, which describes itself as [emphasis added] "one of the largest faith-based, nonprofit health systems in the United States."
And this New York Times article, Downfall for Hospital Where Ebola Spread, suggests that the entirely predictable disastrous effects on the hospital's business have already begun.
ED SCHULTZ: Folks, let's not be afraid to call this what it is. This is the business of health care in America. We are expecting for-profit hospitals to provide the proper protective gear and the proper training. Think about that. Is that -- is that really call for an executive order to force these hospitals to do it? I think so. Looks to me like hospitals are all for profit . . . So this is a workplace issue! This is about competence and accountability, but let's not forget profit. We can't let that get in the way if we really want to make sure that we want to knock down Ebola in this country.