Values conflict with Values

Nonprofit Hospital an oxymoron?  That's certainly my impression based on articles I've posted here and additional readings. 

Anyway, what's fueling my thoughts about nonprofit hospitals not being nonprofit is a June 28-29 Wall Street Journal article on the Amish's experience with healthcare and the inflexibility and lack of responsiveness of the healthcare community.

The article centers around the specific experiences of "Old Order Mennonite farmers in Pennsylvania who pretty much live the way of their 17th-century Dutch ancestors."  They don't use electricity or cars.  They believe in self-sufficiency and in turn, oppose insurance and government aid.  "They won't buy health insurance: They believe it is the religious duty of their communities to provide for one another when sick.  They don't pay Social Security taxes and reject Medicaid or Medicare benefits, as well as farm subsidies."

All of this would be quite fine except that for some reason Old Order Amish and Mennonite farmers suffer from "epidemic proportions of certain deadly genetic diseases."  As such, they must turn to the health care system for really expensive "life-saving" treatments.  The resulting question: shouldn't hospitals cut these folks a break recognizing that big treatments result in big bills and the more bills, the more threatening to the ability of these farmers to hold-onto their land which is the collateral they use to finance the overly-priced services from the "nonprofit" provider.  Of course, with the loss of land comes a loss of life-style and the subsequent loss of a special community.

There's a lot more detail in the article and the position of the two parties certainly raises many of the questions that in the end, for me, challenge the validity of assigning nonprofit status to hospitals and/or not maintaining universal, community-based health care.