"if you like your doctor we don't give a ****."

Taken to its logical extreme...

...then why would anyone choose to be a doctor?


If you believe those working at non profits don't make money you do not understand non profits. The people working at these make a good living. Its the " whatever " the company is, that can not make a profit. My Mom retired from a Non profit. She worked there most her adult life. Think she worked for free?
 
Last edited:
Well, duh...

It's just that from the doctors to the nurses to the pharmaceutical companies to the medical device providers, each element is working for their own personal or company profits.

So I'm not sure how our "health care" can ever be "not for profit", when each element of that system is motivated by profit.

Which part should be non-profit? Or are you talking health insurance and not health care?
 
A company that is non profit can not show any profits on the books. Just imagine if all the profits the pharmaceutical companies rake in had to go back out in research. Or what about the hospitals that make millions in profits. Imagine if they had to donate those profits to fight disease. Things would be a lot different. Maybe some things would get cured and not a band aid put on it. Or a pill shoved down ones throat. Or all the commercials pushing drugs down our throat at how much a year spent on these commercials. I do not need or want some commercial pushing drugs to me. My Doctor should be telling me what I need not a commercial.

Many things can be done to reduce the cost of our health care. But the profits would have to go. Never going to happen. Why...Greed. There is a place in hell for those with this greed.

Tony
 
Last edited:
Just imagine if all the profits the pharmaceutical companies rake in had to go back out in research.

OK. Let me try...

Alright. In that scenario each and every pharmaceutical company would either close or go into another line of business.

In fact, those publicly held would be forced to as their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders.

Unless you are imagining they be nationalized.

Not really sure what you're proposing.
 
OK. Let me try...

Alright. In that scenario each and every pharmaceutical company would either close or go into another line of business.

In fact, those publicly held would be forced to as their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders.

Unless you are imagining they be nationalized.

Not really sure what you're proposing.

Not sure or don't want to? I spelled it out. Our health care should not be for profit. If we loose some doctors well, we did not need those kinds of doctors anyway. I want a doctor who cares about me and not an insurance company. I am lucky and found one. She has spent 4 hours with me one day. She told me the insurance companies give her grieve because of this. She said she was told that she should only spend so many mins with each patient. She said I do what it takes and not what the insurance companies tell me. She has lines of patients because she cares. Its not about the bottom line. Priceless. But if she did what her boss tells her, because this boss is worried about the bottom line and not about her patients she would spend 5 mins with each patient, well that is just sick to be told how much time must be spent with each patient. SICK. Why I try to make my appointment first or be the first of the day. If you don't you could be there for hours. It has happened to me. She cares.

I will say it until I am dead...Our healthcare should not be for profit.

Fire department......Non profit
Police department...Non Profit

Many many others are Non profit. To many for me to list. But those two are biggies don't you agree?

Why Not health care?

Tony
 
Last edited:
Why Not health care?

I'm not necessarily opposed to socialized medicine.

But let's just take pharmaceuticals. Most advances and new products come from companies seeking to profit from them. Remove the profit incentive, and all that innovation goes away.

The only replacement I can see is maybe tasking the NIH or a government agency with doing what he drug companies are doing now.

Question: do you see that as more efficient and/or innovative compared to the current capitalist system?

Full disclosure: I have some Merck stock. I have a small gain, but the 3.5% yield is nice as well. Depriving all the drug companies of the ability to profit would have wide-ranging consequences - both intended and unintended. Be careful what you wish for.
 
A company that is non profit can not show any profits on the books. Just imagine if all the profits the pharmaceutical companies rake in had to go back out in research. Or what about the hospitals that make millions in profits.

The majority (58%) of community/general hospitals in the US are 'not for profit' corporations. The remainder are owned by a government entity (20%) or are investor owned for profits (21%). The not for profits may show an operating profit in some years, but that profit goes back into the operation. As you know, hospitals are some of the most aggressive players in the healthcare market and it has been my experience that the for-profit or not-for-profit status of the hospital makes very little difference.
 
I will say it until I am dead...Our healthcare should not be for profit.

Fire department......Non profit
Police department...Non Profit

Yet the firetrucks are built by for-profit corporations and professional firefighters are paid good salaries.
 
TxFlyer, Thanks for the heads up!!! My two adult kids have BCBS of Texas and had not paid attention about the change. Their Insurance Agent had not notified them about the change because he is in jail for fraud.
 
The majority (58%) of community/general hospitals in the US are 'not for profit' corporations. The remainder are owned by a government entity (20%) or are investor owned for profits (21%). The not for profits may show an operating profit in some years, but that profit goes back into the operation. As you know, hospitals are some of the most aggressive players in the healthcare market and it has been my experience that the for-profit or not-for-profit status of the hospital makes very little difference.

The "American" public is Schizophrenic about the Health Care Industry. They want it to be cheap, but have no restrictions or or limiting measures, yet they want to have unlimited choice. These two desires are mutually exclusive. Networks are created in the hope that there will be contracts that will save, private insurance and the government, money. Healthcare is very expensive, and becoming more expensive every day, someone has to pay. You can have more choice and you decide what you pay, or payments are made for you and you have less choice on what and whom you utilize. Government mandates, limit choice, however, there is little evidence that it saves money (in the US.), unless you have a single payer system , like the British Healthcare System. You can participate or choose not to, however.


Cheers
 
Last edited:
Gee, is there any difference between those four items... hmmmm, I vaguely remember something being different.

Oh wait, yep, the Government has decided that everyone must buy health insurance.


Are any of them "free markets"?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Well, duh...



It's just that from the doctors to the nurses to the pharmaceutical companies to the medical device providers, each element is working for their own personal or company profits.



So I'm not sure how our "health care" can ever be "not for profit", when each element of that system is motivated by profit.



Which part should be non-profit? Or are you talking health insurance and not health care?


All the hospitals around me are non-profit, and the Drs get paid quite well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The "American" public is Schizophrenic about the Health Care Industry. They want it to be cheap, but have no restrictions or or limiting measures, yet they want to have unlimited choice. These two desires are mutually exclusive. Networks are created in the hope that there will be contracts that will save, private insurance and the government, money. Healthcare is very expensive, and becoming more expensive every day, someone has to pay. You can have more choice and you decide what you pay, or payments are made for you and you have less choice on what and whom you utilize. Government mandates, limit choice, however, there is little evidence that it saves money (in the US.), unless you have a single payer system , like the British Healthcare System. You can participate or choose not to, however.

Most of our healthcare dollars on the public side of the ledger are spent in the last year of life. A fairly big number in the last 6/3/1mo. Compared with those numbers, whether you have two or three gastroenterologists available for your scope is just window dressing. The actuaries at CMS know pretty well when those expensive 6 months start and this can be predicted for an individual beneficiary. If we had the political will to restrict services at that 'inflection point', we wouldn't know what to do with all the extra money in the public healthcare programs.

I have family and friends in the german private, german public, british public, spanish public and US healthcare system. I know where I'll be when I am old and sick.
 
Yet the firetrucks are built by for-profit corporations and professional firefighters are paid good salaries.
Correct. But when your house catches fire, the fire department shows up and deals with it. Do you get a bill?

When someone breaks into your house and the cops show up.....do you get a bill?

When an ambulance gets called......you or your insurance do get a bill, and it is absolutely ridiculous.
 
Correct. But when your house catches fire, the fire department shows up and deals with it. Do you get a bill?

When someone breaks into your house and the cops show up.....do you get a bill?

When an ambulance gets called......you or your insurance do get a bill, and it is absolutely ridiculous.



Don't seem to see a lot of people advocating for "concierge" fire departments. And closest thing to "concierge" police/ protection is a Mafia type organization in a neighborhood.
 
I have family and friends in the german private, german public, british public, spanish public and US healthcare system. I know where I'll be when I am old and sick.



Which country will you prefer when you are old and worn out?
 
Yet the firetrucks are built by for-profit corporations and professional firefighters are paid good salaries.



We all seem to be quite happy with government provided fire departments.

Most fireman I know brag about how much money they make. Never seem to be a shortage of applicants.

Hell, I don't even complain when they come tell me I have to address a fire hazard on my premises. And, they have to approve before a building permit gets issued.
 
Just wondering if nddons understood what a free market was or not. And why he thought health insurance would be different than the other items he buys every day.


I do. Do you? Apparently not.

Pre ACA, insurance companies had some regulations with which to live by, and they competed against each other for business; if they were bad at business or paying claims, they lost business and may go TU.

Post ACA, insurance companies are mandated by law to cover virtually every health need (regardless of their customers' needs), are restricted in the amount of income they may earn, are prohibited from selling a product customized for a certain customer, are fined for doing so, are forced to cover preexisting conditions for new customers, and to sell insurance regardless of the risks. That's not even mentioning the individual mandate and the employer mandate.

That's similar to vegetables how?
 
I do. Do you? Apparently not.

Pre ACA, insurance companies had some regulations with which to live by, and they competed against each other for business; if they were bad at business or paying claims, they lost business and may go TU.

Post ACA, insurance companies are mandated by law to cover virtually every health need (regardless of their customers' needs), are restricted in the amount of income they may earn, are prohibited from selling a product customized for a certain customer, are fined for doing so, are forced to cover preexisting conditions for new customers, and to sell insurance regardless of the risks. That's not even mentioning the individual mandate and the employer mandate.

That's similar to vegetables how?



Didn't think you understood it. Thanks for confirming.

Had regulations before. Still have regulations.

They were not in a "free market" before. Keep tilting at imaginary windmills.
 
Correct. But when your house catches fire, the fire department shows up and deals with it. Do you get a bill?

Depending on the jurisdiction, yes. In MD the fire service is paid with a surcharge on the car registration, after that it's 'free' (except for the check you throw in the boot when they come around once a year). In other places, fire departments, while non-profit, operate on a subscription basis. If you are not a subscriber, you get a bill for any callout (or as recently happened, can watch the firefighters stand at the end of the driveway and wait for the house to burn down).

When someone breaks into your house and the cops show up.....do you get a bill?
I do get bills for false alarms. On the traffic side, policing has turned into a for-profit enterprise. Speed cameras, redlight cameras, aggressive parking enforcement.

When an ambulance gets called......you or your insurance do get a bill, and it is absolutely ridiculous.
Again, that depends. In the district of columbia, you dont get a bill. But their ambulance service is chronically broke, has ambulances that spontaneously combust and provides response times so long that often emergency patients are transported in the back of firetrucks and police cruisers.

As for it being 'ridiculous'. Most ambulance bills I have dealt with were in the $500-700 range. Considering that it requires 2 staff members who have to be paid 24/7 but dont constantly work, equipment, liability insurance etc. that doesn't seem excessive. In the ambulance world, it is the public providers ,that are silly expensive compared with private companies such as AMR, Patriot or Banner.
 
Insurance companies love "gatekeepers" in the system.
 
Insurance companies love "gatekeepers" in the system.

My FIL, a healthy 84 yo, had a minor problem that required outpatient surgery. As a result of a test, the specialist "feeding frenzy" began. A stent was installed. Then a pacemaker. Six months into this, because none of the "specialist's" communicated with one another, they had him so ill on medication side effects that he could hardly walk. This was a man who played 18 holes of golf, walkedthe course and pulled his bag on a cart.

Some of these idiots were proposing invasive heart surgery, on an 84 year old, for no other reason than to collect fees.

Finally, his primary care guy said enough. Took him off the new miracle drugs (there's something to those disclaimers on the TV ads) put him on aspirin. Changed his diet, gave him some vitamin supplements.
Now, he's back to playing golf.

There's something to be said for having a PCP, a quarterback to call the play. Otherwise, you're just red meat for the system. Everybody has their hand out.
 
Last edited:
Insurance companies love "gatekeepers" in the system.

Before ACA, most of the commercial HMOs had abandoned the gatekeeper model and went open access.. They saw that women still went to gyns and old guys to urologists, the onlydifference was that they also had a PCP visit in the system.
 
Insurance companies love "gatekeepers" in the system.

Yes , because it saves them money. If you do not like them, you can choose a different plan (without "gatekeepers" ), or pay cash. You will pay more but will have no gatekeepers. The choice is yours. Don't expect to get a Cadillac for the price of a Corolla.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
Didn't think you understood it. Thanks for confirming.

Had regulations before. Still have regulations.

They were not in a "free market" before. Keep tilting at imaginary windmills.


And keep imagining that your hero Obama and his democrat sycophants have done nothing different to the health insurance industry. Nope. Nothing to see here. Move along. BCBS is canceling plans in Texas as a result of Obamacare? Hey, it's not Obamacare's problem. It's everyone else's problem.

You do know that regulations are different than statutes, right?
 
You take a rather bad analogy I made and not only don't get the point but turn it around that I'm too thick to know when I need a specialist. That's rich. :rolleyes:

I can only surmise from your handle and the fact you champion the progressive's in every thread on here that you get your benefits free or have your jaws locked onto the government's tit in some form or fashion.


Well, I can only surmise, by reading what YOU wrote, that you don't understand how to diagnose a nail in the foot, you don't understand what medical treatment you should seek, and you are better served by an HMO.

OR....

You willfully spread misinformation and don't bother operating in the truth.


But, that is all just based on what YOU wrote. :yes:


And, if it helps you to discuss these topics and think about as you try and form an opinion and a mechanism to survive life's daily challenges to try and create labels about other people and to fabricate imaginary personas, then please go ahead. It is all about you.
 
In other places, fire departments, while non-profit, operate on a subscription basis. If you are not a subscriber, you get a bill for any callout (or as recently happened, can watch the firefighters stand at the end of the driveway and wait for the house to burn down).

.


Do you have a link to this model and the incident you are describing?

Crazy system, be fun to read more about it.
 
And keep imagining that your hero Obama and his democrat sycophants have done nothing different to the health insurance industry. Nope. Nothing to see here. Move along. BCBS is canceling plans in Texas as a result of Obamacare? Hey, it's not Obamacare's problem. It's everyone else's problem.

You do know that regulations are different than statutes, right?



United Healthcare was $35.05 per share on Dec 15, 2015.


Today, United Healthcare is $117.89.


I have to think that "hero Obama and his democrat sycophants" have dropped a pretty amazing windfall on Health Insurance companies and their stockholders.
 
"I have to think that "hero Obama and his democrat sycophants" have dropped a pretty amazing windfall on Health Insurance companies and their stockholders."

No, and they have said so publicly ! Obamacare is actually a net loss for most insurance companies. The fact that they are considering getting out might be increasing their stock price.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/19/news/economy/unitedhealth-obamacare/

Cheers
 
Last edited:
"I have to think that "hero Obama and his democrat sycophants" have dropped a pretty amazing windfall on Health Insurance companies and their stockholders."

No, and they have said so publicly ! Obamacare is actually a net loss for most insurance companies. The fact that they are considering getting out might be increasing their stock price.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/19/news/economy/unitedhealth-obamacare/

Cheers

And yet they have gone up 227% over the past 5 years.

Maybe you measure "windfall" different than I do.

LMAO..... :dunno:
 
As for it being 'ridiculous'. Most ambulance bills I have dealt with were in the $500-700 range. Considering that it requires 2 staff members who have to be paid 24/7 but dont constantly work, equipment, liability insurance etc. that doesn't seem excessive. In the ambulance world, it is the public providers ,that are silly expensive compared with private companies such as AMR, Patriot or Banner.
Not really.

I was a volunteer firefighter in a small town in Maine. Ambulance service was also volunteer. No one got a bill when we showed up, but the ambulance bills tended to be closer to $1000 per call....and that was over 15 years ago. I have no idea what they charge now.

There was no ambulance staff being paid 24/7.
 
Last edited:
Overhead and cost has gone up way more than that. ;) Not a particular friend of insurance companies but that is a fact.

Cheers


You are comparing "overhead and cost" to increased wealth generated for the firm's shareholders??

That might be the worst "apples to orangutans" comparison ever made.


The insurance companies have managed the "overhead and cost" in a manner to generate a 227% return to the share holders in the last 5 years.

They have had a windfall, by any measure. Obamacare was designed to help poor people in blue states, people with pre-existing conditions, and kids under 26, plus a lot of people who are self-employed / freelancers, oh, and it was REALLY designed to help the insurance companies, hospitals, and Dr's.


HCA (Hospital Corp of America) was at $21.18 on Dec 9, 2011.

Today, HCA is at $65.95


That is a helluva return for the hospitals in the last 4 years. Can't imagine they aren't happy with the current laws.



And, from your article, the US has been spending more, and increasing the amount we spend at a faster rate since long before Obama was even a Jr. Senator from Illinois.

CRO_Health_Country_Healthcare_Spending_09-14.png
 
Last edited:
"And, from your article, the US has been spending more, and increasing the amount we spend at a faster rate since long before Obama was even a Jr. Senator from Illinois."

Look at the reasons given (in the article) , for higher costs.

Cheers
 
Gee, is there any difference between those four items... hmmmm, I vaguely remember something being different.

Oh wait, yep, the Government has decided that everyone must buy health insurance.

Good, because I'm sick of subsidizing people who don't buy insurance.
 
"And, from your article, the US has been spending more, and increasing the amount we spend at a faster rate since long before Obama was even a Jr. Senator from Illinois."

Look at the reasons given (in the article) , for higher costs.

Cheers


You agree that costs need to be halved?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top