[Hot Choco]

Most countries with universal health care do not have hospitals or insurance funds which make profit, although a couple (the Netherlands, for example) do.

Question to liberals - would you mind universal health care, if insurance companies and hospitals were allowed to make a profit out of what they do? Is the health care industry being non-profit a central part of your philosophy, or would you guys not mind as long as every citizen had access to it?

I say this because Obama's health care allows insurance companies and hospitals to make a profit, and I wanted to know if it infuriated or merely irritated liberals/ democrats.

[Cartertonian]

It doesn't 'infuriate' me. Nevertheless, having worked in private healthcare (Nuffield Group, to be specific) I have seen for myself how 'clinical need' rapidly gives way to 'clinical greed', as the fee-paid clinicians scrabble to line their pockets, by over-inflating diagnoses and insisting upon tests, investigations, medical procedures and even surgical operations that would not be clinically indicated in an NHS setting.

So no, it doesn't 'infuriate' me, but it does sadden me and makes me disinclined to support profit-making in healthcare.

[Wolfman]

My desire for UHC is based off a simple principle: equal opportunity helps countries economically. Access to healthcare is something which is needed for an individual to prosper. So, if everyone has access to healthcare, then there is going to be a healthier population, which is better able to work. This will allow a better economic condition for the whole country. So, the next step would be to determine which country has the most effective system, which can be done by doing a cost-benefit analysis of every countries Health Care system. If a completely private system is the best in terms of cost-benefit, I'd support that. If some other system has the best, I'd support it too.

[PBVBROOK]

It doesn't bother me. In fact I like it. I believe that we have much to gain by keeping the profit motive in health care. What bothers me is the excessive profits that many health care companies make. There is a balance.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court eliminated any chance of universal health care just recently when they struck down controls on corporate spending. Universal health care is DOA. A nonprofit system is completely out of the question.

[hannigaholic]

Question to liberals - would you mind universal health care, if insurance companies and hospitals were allowed to make a profit out of what they do? Is the health care industry being non-profit a central part of your philosophy, or would you guys not mind as long as every citizen had access to it?

Whether you consider me a liberal or not is up for debate (I've been called everything from a socialist to a 'rampant libertarian'), but I have no problem with profit-making hospitals under a universal healthcare system. In fact my preferred system is one where the medical profession is a regulated market, but with taxation paying, say, 75% of the fees. That way you get enough cost to the end user to stimulate price competition among healthcare providers and enough collective funding that the poor have access to affordable healthcare. It might not qualify as universal healthcare though.

[PredatorOC]

would you mind universal health care, if insurance companies and hospitals were allowed to make a profit out of what they do?

While I'm not a liberal, I don't see what good could come out of this. If you have public funds financing health care with private providers, things will unfold in two stages: 1) prices will go up considerably as private firms realize they can bill the public for all kinds of costs and 2) the government will institute price controls that will lower the supply and quality of health care.

Now obviously the government can go with 2 right away and skip the skyrocketing prices, but I don't really see what benefit there is to this. There is really no market mechanism left to benefit from and in a worst case scenario private providers can and probably will attempt regulatory capture to push up the prices.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

I wouldn't say that profit-making in health would 'infuriate' me (I'm OK with highly skilled doctors getting large salaries, or pharmaceutical companies making profits, and it's somewhat analogous to that); but any set-up that includes private entities making a profit should be honestly shown to be more efficient than a publicly-owned one.

For instance, I don't like the Private Finance Initiative method of financing new hospitals in the UK (in which banks borrow money at commercial rates, and lend it, at a profit, to a privately-owned company that builds the hospital, maintains it, and then owns it after the end of the contract with the NHS, having made its profits), because it's inherently more expensive than the government borrowing the money at the lower interest rate it can get, and building and running it itself. The only way the private companies could make up the money needed for their profit is to screw the maintenance staff out of a living wage, or to do the maintenance badly. Or they cook the books in the bidding process, so that the PFI option looks cheaper (this is typically done by an unjustified "public services are always more inefficient than private ones" claim on running costs and building costs).

But the Labour government prefers this method, because it makes government borrowing look smaller at the moment, even though the fees for using the hospital will be more in the long run. So the figures get fixed to make it look as though PFI is a cheaper option. In 10 or 20 years' time, the government will be cursing the name of Gordon Brown for the expenditure he's saddled them with.

[KPres]

It doesn't bother me. In fact I like it. I believe that we have much to gain by keeping the profit motive in health care. What bothers me is the excessive profits that many health care companies make. There is a balance.

Ah, yes, those excessive profits from...the least profitable industry in the country...


RAPING us out of $0.03 on the dollar!


http://seekingalpha.com/article/155858-health-insurance-industry-s-profit-margins-rank-86

[PBVBROOK]

^^

Come on KPRES. Some of us read the bullshit you post. Where there are excessive profits we sort them out.

Please post what the 7th most profitable industry is. You don't want to do you? How about REIT Healthcare facilities? Worse huh.

More nonsense from the right. Bluff and bravado. I don't blame you for not being able to mount an ordered argument. You grew up on 2 minute sound bites.

[TheRedMenace]

That chart doesn't take into account the fact that they often perform procedures that are not necessary in order to make a buck.

[DanDaMan]

Please post what the 7th most profitable industry is. You don't want to do you? How about REIT Healthcare facilities? Worse huh.

A) Drug companies incur risks in research & development costs. They have to have that margin to grow and invent new drugs.
B) REIT's are not direct profits from the "health industry". They are profits from the running of the facility property and profits from the construction and lease.

[PBVBROOK]

B) REIT's are not direct profits from the "health industry". They are profits from the running of the facility property and profits from the construction and lease.

What? Let me get this straight. Your brain has somehow concluded that real estate and facilities are not a cost of doing business. So you would call the CT scanner a part of the cost of medical care but not the building it is in? And why, ask your brain, does hospital REIT return double the profit of other real estate? And ask your brian who pays those costs.

[DanDaMan]

They are a niche within the health care market and since they are location based you have the ability to shop around for a cheaper facility.

So I wouldn't equate them as equals to a pharmaceutical companies profits.

[Genghis Khan]

Question to liberals - would you mind universal health care, if insurance companies and hospitals were allowed to make a profit out of what they do?

As long as necessary steps are taken to ensure universal access and universal affordability - No.

[Todd D.]

What? Let me get this straight. Your brain has somehow concluded that real estate and facilities are not a cost of doing business. So you would call the CT scanner a part of the cost of medical care but not the building it is in? And why, ask your brain, does hospital REIT return double the profit of other real estate? And ask your brian who pays those costs

Except that only lists the profit MARGIN, not the total profit. Yeah, they earn about 24% in profit margin, but real estate costs are next to nil following the initial investment. OF COURSE they have high profit margins then.

Saying that Health Care providers make massive profits (or, even more absurd, claiming that they are "gouging" anybody), and then trying to show their REIT's as proof, is either profoundly goofy or profoundly ignorant. You're generally not either.

The chart is clear. The profit margin for health care companies (commonly defined as hospitals and insurance companies) are lower than 5%, which is quite low. It's made up for by their tremendous volume (spurred by both tremendous demand as well as tremendous revenues due to high cost of goods sold), sure, but it shows quite clearly that health care companies are not "gouging" anybody, they merely have insanely high costs and insanely high volume.

(Note that I generally don't include Big Pharma has "health care" companies, since they have very different supply chains)

[Genghis Khan]

but it shows quite clearly that health care companies are not "gouging" anybody, they merely have insanely high costs and insanely high volume.

Healthcare insiders disagree -

Looking back over his long career, Potter sees an industry corrupted by Wall Street expectations and greed. According to Potter, insurers have every incentive to deny coverage — every dollar they don't pay out to a claim is a dollar they can add to their profits, and Wall Street investors demand they pay out less every year.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/profile.html

[Todd D.]

OK, first of all, "Healthcare insiders"? Are you joking? Wendell Potter was the head of PR. Not underwriting, not claims, not finance, not investment. Not anything remotely dealing with the insurance or benefits side of the industry. PR. His opinion is about as relevant as William Rodriguez's is on the cause of the World Trade Center collapse. He's relevant because he happened to work for CIGNA, but as far as knowlege of insurance? No, he's not an insider.

Second, did you even read the article? It's not about excessive profits, but denial of claims. We tighten restrictions on denial of claims (which I tend to agree needs to happen) and costs go UP, not down. What does that mean? It means higher premiums, higher costs to the consumer. Wonderful.

You can't say that they're price gouging, because even WITH the denial of claims their profit margins are razor thin. If they were gouging, they'd be charging too much, not too little.

[Genghis Khan]

OK, first of all, "Healthcare insiders"? Are you joking?

Are you? Do you actually think that because of was head of PR then he was confined to his office for 20 years? He never saw how the company operates? For 20 fuckin' years? No, you're not an ideologue...

He is very much an insider. You just refuse to admit it because he refutes your (definitely wrong) point. He testified to congress about how the inside works. How they nitpick, how they look for people to drop, how they change entire policies so it would seem they're not discriminating anyone in particular.

You're not bullshitting me. You're bullshitting yourself.

It's not about excessive profits, but denial of claims.

Hello... anybody home? Think, Mcfly, think! How the hell you think profits are made?

You can't say that they're price gouging, because even WITH the denial of claims their profit margins are razor thin.

So razor thin, in fact, that a securities and exchange commission report shows a spike of 428% of the 10 largest insurers between 2000 and 2007.

Other than that:

http://vancouver.injuryboard.com/miscel ... eid=230780

Analysis finds largest insurers covered fewer people but earned 56 percent more

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/f ... fits-soar/

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/201002 ... /702129851

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish ... 5167.shtml

http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2010/02/ ... -plummets/

Last year, the head of Cigna (CI, Fortune 500) made $11 million and the head of United Health Group (UNH, Fortune 500) made $9.4 million, according to the Corporate Library.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/01/news/ec ... /index.htm

Really... how can we expect hard working CEO's to provide for their families on a puny $10 million a year salary?

[Todd D.]

It's amazing that people constantly confuse "profit margin" and "profit". I forget the quality of who I'm dealing with sometimes. Your last quote is even funnier. Big number = bad!!! RAR!!

Laff.

[Genghis Khan]

It's amazing that people constantly confuse "profit margin" and "profit".

So in your estimation, when they drop more people (which means they shell out less money for care but already took in their premiums for a while) and make more in profit, that makes their bottom line suffer?

Again - You're BSing yourself.

Big numbers are bad if they really suck at their job, which they do.

But I understand. You wanna play the loyal Devil's advocate. Good for you.