This doesn't solve the issue presented in the study. PE hospitals exists in states with and without these restrictions. So while CON might be an issue, it doesn't reconcile the issue of PE. In fact, PE priorities is exactly one of the things CON was setup to handle.

Regardless, you have to explain how removing CON solves the PE issue mentioned when states without CON had the same issues.

▲

RHSeeger 2 days ago | parent [-]

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that

- There is a specific list of regulations that cause the problem

- Each regulation in that list is present everywhere the problem exists

Neither one of those are true. Instead, there are many regulations and, combined, they add up to causing the problems. The specific regulations can and do vary by location; but the result is the same.

	▲	20after4 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I think the problem is obsessive optimization of profit at the expense of literally everything else. Greed is bad, especially in a field that is at least in theory centered on taking care of people. You can't take care of someone by exploiting them for the maximum possible profit.
	▲	jasonlotito 17 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> You seem... No. You are 100% wrong. The context of this discussion is PE. So comments discussing this involve PE. So while you are correct in general, you are wrong specifically. In light of that, I stand by what I said: you have to explain how removing CON solves the PE issue mentioned when states without CON had the same issues. Maybe this isn't possible, but then we accept that this is not an answer to PE, which again, topic of conversation.