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.
I have noticed one thing about our society. The minute you talk about changing things into a "for pay" system, then people get up in arms. For example a few times on these forums I've suggested that private schools would be a great direction for this country to go in. And people stated that it was wrong because then schools would become "for profit". But I have to ask, why is that a bad thing?
You know hospitals also exist for profit. And they should because medical treatment isn't cheap. But just because a hospital exist for profit doesn't undercut the fact that they still save lives there. And not only that it's in their best interest to save lives because they lose profit if people start dropping dead from the common cold while in their care. And not only that, they have competition, so they have to be a BETTER hospital than another hospital. So how is this a bad thing? Why do we focus on the fact that just because something is for profit that there is something wrong with it?
I am afraid when there is NO incentive for someone doing a great dead. That means they don't stand to benefit, and really have no incentive to do it well. And this is what we see with government. Sure the government is for profit as well, but it just doesn't ask us to pay it everytime it does something. So we assume it isn't for profit. But let's say the government wasn't for profit? Then how would it pay for facilities, what would be it's goal? How is it punished for when it does the wrong thing?
It seem that for profit is the best incentive a person or organization can have.
Profit is wonderful as long as it is not tied to crony capitalism or dirty tricks. Otherwise, profit seems to motivate some to be creative and productive.
Nothing says a 'private' school has to be for profit.
A school could easily apply a a non-profit, could even require schools to operate that way.
Catholic Schools and Universities are for non-profit, but tend to be very pricey.
A for non-profit hospital is actually driven to make a profit. They are simply called for non-profit because they do not sell stock in Wall Street and get tax breaks.
Our country doesn't have true capitalism. It's nothing but chronyism ran by protectionists. Take the "non profit" hospitals for instance (you know the ones that charge $100 for an aspirin), the whole hospital system is a protectionist racket with regulations designed to protect their monopoly. If a group of private owners want to open a hospital, they first must go in front of a board and "show a need to the community" to open a hospital. That board is full of people affiliated with the hospital system. Of course they're going to reject the notion that the community needs an extra hospital, why would they approve their competition if they can help it?
That's just one example in an endless book of chronyism...
Our country doesn't have true capitalism. It's nothing but chronyism ran by protectionists. Take the "non profit" hospitals for instance (you know the ones that charge $100 for an aspirin), the whole hospital system is a protectionist racket with regulations designed to protect their monopoly. If a group of private owners want to open a hospital, they first must go in front of a board and "show a need to the community" to open a hospital. That board is full of people affiliated with the hospital system. Of course they're going to reject the notion that the community needs an extra hospital, why would they approve their competition if they can help it?
That's just one example in an endless book of chronyism...
How about the private health insurance monopoly. They make billions a year by simply doing insurance paperwork. They charge patients high premiums, pay medical bills, and the difference is profit. All of this with the blessing of Washington DC which gives then protection.
For profit or non-profit can't be the basis of making a decision. It depends almost completely on the individual institution. Non-profit in many cases is deceptive. In many cases, these companies actually make a profit, but for tax purposes, its declared non-profit. For example, my wife worked at a hospital owned by the Roman Catholic church. They made a profit, but they just never called it a profit. The profit was either plowed back into the building and equipment or sent up to the Roman Catholic church hierarchy.
There is nothing wrong with "for profit" businesses in a competitive field. It leads to innovation and price competition.
I definitely have problems with "for profit" in a monopoly situation, and/or with regards to life necessities and infrastructure.
There is only one possible set of power lines being run to your house, which is why the electric industry is so heavily regulated. "For profit" electric companies exist, but they are prohibitted by law from arbitrarily raising rates or cutting services for the sake of profit. Personally, I live in a part of the country with government-owned utilities (TVA and EPB), and we pay some of the cheapest electric rates and have access the the fastest and cheapest internet service in the entire country. Yes, our local government-owned Electric Power Board fought the cable companies to run fiber directly into all homes and provide cheap and efficient cable, internet and phone service to all users, as well as providing free high-speed Wi-Fi in all public parks, the airport, and other public spaces. It's phenomenal.
I wouldn't want to be forced to pay by the mile to travel down private toll roads everywhere I went. This road over here is cheaper, but it'll beat my suspension to death; that road over there is smoother and faster, but it costs twice as much. I wanted to drive down a third road, but the owner declared bankruptcy and shut it down. Yes, we technically do "pay by the mile" in the form of fuel taxes, but repair money is distributed to all roads.
As for making all schools "for profit"... just no. One of the basic principles in this country is that all people are born equal. A poor kid born in the slums can study in school, get a good education, work hard and smart, and live a very successful life. All taxpayer money going into the schools needs to ultimately benefit the students. By definition, a "for profit" school will skim a good bit of that money off the top for distribution to CEO's and stockholders. There would be nothing to prevent the managers of a corrupt "for profit" school from cutting corners on safety and education to line their own pockets.
That said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with private schools. If someone wants to pay money to give their kids a private education, even homeschooled with private teachers, there's nothing wrong with that as long as they still pay taxes to benefit the public schools.
Why is because money is not supposed to be an end in itself.
There is no intrinsic value in money except as a medium of exchange
for things which do have intrinsic value such as goods and services.
Who's serving what ?
Is it not true that our world and all its yield does not come with price
tags attached ? Who puts the price tags on our resources ? Who puts
the price tags on human services ? What is ethical ?
These are questions humanity must answer if it truly wants to advance
to the next stage in development. Human behavior, if not restrained by
ethics, in law or practice, metastasizes into vice. Virtues must be crafted
and enforced by the community for its own benefit.
How about the private health insurance monopoly. They make billions a year by simply doing insurance paperwork. They charge patients high premiums, pay medical bills, and the difference is profit. All of this with the blessing of Washington DC which gives then protection.
Pretax operating margin (6) was 8.4 percent for the third quarter of 2015 compared with 7.8 percent for the third quarter of 2014. The pretax operating margin increased primarily as a result of higher underwriting margins in Aetna’s Government business. The after-tax net income margin was 3.7 percent and 4.0 percent for the third quarters of 2015 and 2014, respectively.
• Effective tax rate was 45.0 percent for the third quarter of 2015 compared with 39.9 percent for the third quarter of 2014. The increase in the effective tax rate reflects the impact of health care reform, primarily from the 2015 increase in the non-deductible health insurer fee.
Your health insurance premium will typically have 2-3% premium tax.
Aetna AFTER TAX is getting about 4% as shown above.
Government tax on their profits are about 4% as shown above.
As for operating costs, I don't think you grasp how much work is involved in terms of servicing all of that business not just paying claims but of course policy issuance, huge regulatory burdens, rate calculations, 50 different sets of state laws, regulations, approval processes and so on and so forth.
Bottom line, they are getting about 4 cents per dollar of after tax profit, the government is getting 6-7 cents.
If you are truly interested in controlling healthcare premiums I think you need to start getting better information than from wherever is blowing smoke at you for political or other motivations.
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.
