Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You mean like the bloated salaries for the top administrators, etc and the pensions. NO profit for who? Remember pensions also need the profit from throe companies as that is where they get a return on their investment, just a s all investors large or small do. Oops now a lot of people have less money as well.
The ACA was modeled after Romney Care which was endorsed by Heritage. Obama chose that model because he wanted to get consensus from both Democrats and Republicans. The option to reducing administrative costs would involve taking private insurance companies out of the equation but that has never been acceptable to Republicans, so what do you suggest?
As far as pensions, pensions are offered by companies who find them valuable in attracting and retaining their workforce, if you think eliminating them would save consumers money I suggest you take a look at how much prices have dropped among firms that quit offering pensions. Big hint, none of them ever dropped their prices when they eliminated pensions.
You mean like the bloated salaries for the top administrators, etc and the pensions. NO profit for who? Remember pensions also need the profit from throe companies as that is where they get a return on their investment, just a s all investors large or small do
You can start your own thread on administrative bloat in public education, expat, or add to the ones that already exist, because I think you know what I mean about profit in the health care industry.
"When we debate healthcare costs in the U.S., we need to be clear on whether we are focusing on profits, per se, or instead on the simple fact that everyone in the healthcare industry – from for-profit insurance companies to private practice physiotherapists – understandably need to focus on their own bottom lines.
Undoubtedly, being a for-profit company with anxious shareholders puts more pressure on that bottom line. But everyone working in the healthcare industry has to make sure that the revenues they receive, in the long run, at a minimum cover their operating costs.
A more nuanced debate about health care costs in the US should better distinguish between health care related income and outright profit. No one should go bankrupt either paying for medical care or providing it. But that doesn’t mean health care businesses, whether profit or non-profit, should enrich themselves at the expense of society."
"...the health care system should be first, second, third, and last about benefiting people’s health. It does not seem to be for the C-suite executives of even moderate-sized hospitals, who often come from accounting and finance backgrounds. The argument is that if there is “no margin” there is “no mission”, and that in the competitive environment of health care it is necessary to have good business managers to make it possible for a hospital – or hospital system – to even survive, not to mention to prosper."
Good management is important. Good management means the ability to run an organization efficiently, to create effective systems and effective working relationships, to enhance quality and limit unnecessary costs. It is absolutely necessary to build a system that is about benefiting the health of people. This includes financial knowledge and financial management ability. But increasing profit, increasing market share, taking “desirable” customers away from “competitors” has no such place; the health system has no business in being organized in such a way that these things are even possible.
This statement is so completely at odds with the way the health system is currently structured that it bears repeating. There should be no financial incentive for competition in health care. "
"In Alameda County, a private hospital turned away a woman in labor because the hospital's computer showed that she didn't have insurance. Hours later, her baby was born dead in a county hospital.
In San Bernardino, a hospital surgeon sent a patient who had been stabbed in the heart to a county medical center after examining him and declaring his condition stable. The patient arrived at the county medical center moribund, suffered a cardiac arrest, and died.
These two hospitals shifted these patients to county facilities not for medical reasons, but for economic ones -- the receiving hospitals feared they wouldn't be paid for treating the patient. These patients simply weren't "good business."
The ACA was modeled after Romney Care which was endorsed by Heritage. Obama chose that model because he wanted to get consensus from both Democrats and Republicans. The option to reducing administrative costs would involve taking private insurance companies out of the equation but that has never been acceptable to Republicans, so what do you suggest?
As far as pensions, pensions are offered by companies who find them valuable in attracting and retaining their workforce, if you think eliminating them would save consumers money I suggest you take a look at how much prices have dropped among firms that quit offering pensions. Big hint, none of them ever dropped their prices when they eliminated pensions.
I never said anything about dropping pensions.
Just that pensions like many other "group" funds gain income from investing in the Insurance Industryprofits. If they go away pensions and a LOT of investments will also have severe financial problems and that is not just an issue for the rich.
Obama Care (ACA) has good and bad, just as all plans do. They are presented as feel good ideas that will work, and don't. It was known to have issues that would cause failure from the beginning and it is failing financially now. Any new plan if in anyway similar will also go bad. Both parties have goals that do not put people first, rather their interests and ideologies.
You can start your own thread on administrative bloat in public education, expat, or add to the ones that already exist, because I think you know what I mean about profit in the health care industry.
"When we debate healthcare costs in the U.S., we need to be clear on whether we are focusing on profits, per se, or instead on the simple fact that everyone in the healthcare industry – from for-profit insurance companies to private practice physiotherapists – understandably need to focus on their own bottom lines.
Undoubtedly, being a for-profit company with anxious shareholders puts more pressure on that bottom line. But everyone working in the healthcare industry has to make sure that the revenues they receive, in the long run, at a minimum cover their operating costs.
A more nuanced debate about health care costs in the US should better distinguish between health care related income and outright profit. No one should go bankrupt either paying for medical care or providing it. But that doesn’t mean health care businesses, whether profit or non-profit, should enrich themselves at the expense of society."
"...the health care system should be first, second, third, and last about benefiting people’s health. It does not seem to be for the C-suite executives of even moderate-sized hospitals, who often come from accounting and finance backgrounds. The argument is that if there is “no margin” there is “no mission”, and that in the competitive environment of health care it is necessary to have good business managers to make it possible for a hospital – or hospital system – to even survive, not to mention to prosper."
Good management is important. Good management means the ability to run an organization efficiently, to create effective systems and effective working relationships, to enhance quality and limit unnecessary costs. It is absolutely necessary to build a system that is about benefiting the health of people. This includes financial knowledge and financial management ability. But increasing profit, increasing market share, taking “desirable” customers away from “competitors” has no such place; the health system has no business in being organized in such a way that these things are even possible.
This statement is so completely at odds with the way the health system is currently structured that it bears repeating. There should be no financial incentive for competition in health care. "
"In Alameda County, a private hospital turned away a woman in labor because the hospital's computer showed that she didn't have insurance. Hours later, her baby was born dead in a county hospital.
In San Bernardino, a hospital surgeon sent a patient who had been stabbed in the heart to a county medical center after examining him and declaring his condition stable. The patient arrived at the county medical center moribund, suffered a cardiac arrest, and died.
These two hospitals shifted these patients to county facilities not for medical reasons, but for economic ones -- the receiving hospitals feared they wouldn't be paid for treating the patient. These patients simply weren't "good business."
You are listing all the problems. You get no service without profits and no one wants low profits. The investors do not want low returns.
Where does the needed money come from? The people is the only answer. Who establishes the costs ... not the people. Many point to Europe as a model, but if it was so great the well off would not be buying other insurance. It is like Social Security and Medicare.
Why do elected officials at the National level have their one plans that give them far better than the people they are supposed to care for and ... are paid for by the people they are supposed to care for. That will not change so the "people" always gets second rate service at best? How do you change that?
I completely agree with what you just said. I have family in France and Norway, their sentiments are exactly the same as those you shared. They said they would never relocate to the US and they don't know anyone who would that the system in the US is deviously rigged to always advantage the ultra wealthy.
I know someone currently living in Finland. This person also lived & worked in this country for a number of years (she has a Green Card) She told me overall she is satisfied with the health care in her country. She did mention those "with money" sometimes used private clinics for medical care.
Fighting about health insurance after people get sick from obesity related diseases is a waste of time and energy. America now spends $1 Trillion every year on treating diseases that are largely preventable. All the insurance in the world isn't going to fix that. Even far left liberals said that years ago:
Fighting about health insurance after people get sick from obesity related diseases is a waste of time and energy. America now spends $1 Trillion every year on treating diseases that are largely preventable. All the insurance in the world isn't going to fix that. Even far left liberals said that years ago:
No, actually if people had to pay market rate for healthcare only the wealthy would receive medical care of serious illness or injury.
That's completely false. My neighbor's son has a job as an automotive department employee at Costco. He makes $17 an hour and he could get a hip replacement through his insurance and wouldn't pay CLOSE to $60,000.
Only you would come up with such a convoluted explanation about why you think that people are not entitled to access to health care. Why am I not surprised that it's a reflection of your "survival of the fittest" attitude?
It's not "convoluted" at all. You simply don't fully understand the concept of economic scarcity and its implications (and that's okay, a lot of people do not).
What you call "survival of the fittest" is actually something well described by economics for over 3 centuries.
Lots of people say "Healthcare" is a right. But people who say that usually don't understand what that implies. They think by saying "It's a right" and it magically happens. That's not how the real world works. What actually happens is this.
- Health care becomes a right.
- Now anyone can get healthcare, regardless of pre-existing conditions, lifestyle habits, etc. They just simply get it.
- Now someone has to pay for it. Right? Doctors don't work for free. California was proposing single payer this year, and it got tied up in committee. Why? Because no one on Earth knows how to magically create DOUBLE the California economy over night. But let's say they were stupid enough to let it out of committee, and now you have to fund it.
- How do you fund it? Well, California has one way to fund it, by increasing taxes. Alright, now you slap a 50% additional tax on businesses, and another 30% tax to income. Maybe you get rid of Prop 13 and make homeowners pay 5% taxes on their homes every year.
- Guess what? Private market entities do not suffer taxation very long before they make market decisions to leave. Businesses leave, private individuals take their families to places where taxes aren't so high.
- The net result, you hollow out the economy by chasing out the makers, and keeping the TAKERS. Now you still have lots of people taking, but you've chased out all the people who were PAYING. Now the problem is compounded since you need to make up some percentage of the lost tax revenue.
California is already in the Top 5 in the nation for individual tax burden. Between 2004 and 2013 California lost 5 million individuals, many of them MAKERS. The net result was $26 BILLION in lost annual income. Imagine what would happen if you implemented single payer.
What I've described above is what every single civil administrator, local politician, treasurer, etc has to consider when someone says "healthcare is a right".
I suggest you go through the same exercise in your head, and then come back to this thread and describe how you would make "health care a right".
Last edited by CaliRestoration; 09-27-2017 at 10:41 AM..
That's completely false. My neighbor's son has a job as an automotive department employee at Costco. He makes $17 an hour and he could get a hip replacement through his insurance and wouldn't pay CLOSE to $60,000.
It's called having a job.
That's because he's cost sharing with everyone else paying the insurance company premiums. How much money do you think he has personally given his insurance company? Less than the cost of a decent hip replacement? I'd bet so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration
It's not "convoluted" at all. You simply don't fully understand the concept of economic scarcity and its implications (and that's okay, a lot of people do not).
What you call "survival of the fittest" is actually something well described by economics for over 3 centuries.
You say "Healthcare" is a right. But people who say that usually don't understand what that implies. They think by saying "It's a right" and it magically happens. That's not how the real world works. What actually happens is this.
- Health care becomes a right.
- Now anyone can get healthcare, regardless of pre-existing conditions, lifestyle habits, etc. They just simply get it.
- Now someone has to pay for it.
Ugggh. A lot of blah blah blah to say that if we treat healthcare as an American right that we as Americans have to pay for it. And the people paying more than their "fair share" will be the wealthy and the healthy. I'm pretty sure people understand this concept, they're not stupid. It's a moral issue, not an economic one. We can afford it as a nation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
