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.
Are they "nonprofit" de facto or are they only nonprofit in a de jure sense? A great many self-proclaimed "nonprofit" organizations are, in actuality, for-profit for the stakeholders that own and/or run the organizations. The directors and other executives can receive great pay and great benefits, pensions, etc. Just because a business is "nonprofit" does not mean that it lacks self interest and a profit motive.
Of course it is... many will have to go to the exchanges and bam -a few years and it will be a single payer system and the government will own our bodies. It will be a single entity - THE GOVERNMENT-that we will have to go through to get health care.. surprise! not to me..
So, how is that working out in all of the other first-world nations? Are the people all slaves to the government? Is the government owning their bodies? Are people in all of those other nation's crying out that they are enslaved as though they were living in the Soviet Union or North Korea?
(Ironically, many of the people who would oppose socialized medicine because they don't want the government to own people's bodies probably support religious dictatorship and support having the government regulating people's activities in the bedroom and oppose abortion and gay marriage, etc.)
Technology and affluence are the 2 main drivers of healthcare costs. If people have more they will spend more. Have you ever wondered why hospitals have marble flooring, HDTV's, private rooms, cable, valet parking?
Franz Knieps: There was no single lever we used for cost containment. Instead, we implemented a large number of minor measures to stabilize the health system’s income and expenditures. In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income. Virtual budgets are also set up at the regional levels; these ensure that all participants in the system—including the health insurance funds and providers—know from the beginning of the year onward how much money can be spent.
I can implement a law that says we can only spend $2,500 per person and then go around proclaiming that the USA has the lowest health cost in the world, but then alot of people would die. That's not to say that I don't like the European models of care, I do. I especially like the fact that their model is competitive and that they rely on clinics so much more than we do and they don't spend money on people that are going to die anyway.
...And if Germany spent 17% of its GDP on health care...would it need to engage in that sort of rationing?
Quote:
You are confusing insurance (health or otherwise) with health care. The two are completely separate issues. Insurance companies didn't come up with "out of network" Dr's and hospitals. The American Hospital association did. The insurance companies don't collude and fix prices, hospitals do. The insurance companies don't have monopolies over care, hospitals do. Ask yourself why you can't go to a clinic for care and then ask yourself who benefits from such a policy? Ask yourself why specialty clinics were targeted in section 6001 of Obamacare?
Who wrote Obamacare? The American Hospital Association.
I'm not just an opponent of the insurance companies, but rather the entire structure of our health care system, including the for-profit (and for-profit in actuality "nonprofit") hospitals. I didn't mean to imply that only insurance companies are to blame.
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.