Healthcare for Profit

[Amaris]

Food is a basic necessity, too. Are you saying that restaurants, grocery stores, and farmers / ranchers shouldn't be allowed to make a profit selling food??????? No?? Well, it's the same principle.

Look, private companies are in business to make money. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their investors to turn a profit. They do so by selling a product or providing a service at a reasonable price. No company can afford to sell health insurance without investors buying into the company on the stock market, and nobody will invest if they don't get a fair return on their money.

And as I said before, the problem isn't health insurance, but rather the run-away costs of health care itself: what the doctors and hospitals charge. Part of that cost is due to the price of malpractice insurance, which is driven up by stupid juries awarding obscene amounts for frivolous lawsuits. If you truly want to "fix health care", you have to address the entire system. Forcing heavy-handed regulations on the insurance side of the equation doesn't deal with the root cause of the problem.

Profit is one thing, I don't see many complaining that health care companies make a profit, the problem is the level of obscene profiteering in the health care industry. Profit is fine, as long as the primary goal is to take care of the medical needs of each person who requires help. If your primary focus is shareholders, corporate interests, or upper level pay for administrative positions, you're doing it wrong.

 

[Relayer1]

Food is a basic necessity, too. Are you saying that restaurants, grocery stores, and farmers / ranchers shouldn't be allowed to make a profit selling food??????? No?? Well, it's the same principle

Staff costs and salaries ? Taken out of the revenue before profit is calculated.

The requirement for a return on investments to shareholders is avoided by state ownership.

 

[Spot261]

Also, some health problems are due to genetics or otherwise random chance but many, including some of the most widespread and harmful, are due to individual choices (obesity, smoking, alcohol, STDs, drugs) so society should provide education against harmful choices (and it does so and also prohibits many drugs) but it seems not morally obligatory if not immoral for all of society to through compulsive taxation try to deal with the effects of the choices that some individuals make.

I'm struggling to come to terms with how wrong this post seems to me.

It's no secret I'm an advocate of universal healthcare, the NHS has defined my career and the underlying philosophy of providing healthcare as a universal human right regardless of the individuals' contributions is to me something of deep and profound importance.

We do this because it is simply the right thing to do, to aid others in need, regardless of their status in society. Human life and well being is assumed to have an intrinsic value regardless of individual choices, capabilities or successes in life. The concept of grading that care on the basis of financial status or input to me is repugnant. People inherently matter and what is the purpose of society if not to benefit those people living within it?

To equate universal healthcare with a lack of individual responsibility is to completely miss the impact made by public spending in health education and preventative care.

 

[Amaris]

I'm struggling to come to terms with how wrong this post seems to me.

It's no secret I'm an advocate of universal healthcare, the NHS has defined my career and the underlying philosophy of providing healthcare as a universal human right regardless of the individuals' contributions is to me something of deep and profound importance.

We do this because it is simply the right thing to do, to aid others in need, regardless of their status in society. Human life and well being is assumed to have an intrinsic value regardless of individual choices, capabilities or successes in life. The concept of grading that care on the basis of financial status or input to me is repugnant. People inherently matter and what is the purpose of society if not to benefit those people living within it?

To equate universal healthcare with a lack of individual responsibility is to completely miss the impact made by public spending in health education and preventative care.

Ah, see, what's happening is that he's turning a right into a moral choice, which is how actual rights are withheld from people. It's the same reasoning that says by recognizing LGBT rights, we also condone their behaviors. That is how you start a war on gays, a war on drugs, a war on... well, whatever you want, because it reframes the issue as a moral choice instead of a recognition of one's rights.

 

[Snaploud]

And as I said before, the problem isn't health insurance, but rather the run-away costs of health care itself: what the doctors and hospitals charge. Part of that cost is due to the price of malpractice insurance, which is driven up by stupid juries awarding obscene amounts for frivolous lawsuits. If you truly want to "fix health care", you have to address the entire system. Forcing heavy-handed regulations on the insurance side of the equation doesn't deal with the root cause of the problem.

Private insurance companies have shown again and again that they cannot be trusted without a lot of oversight and heavy regulation. That's the price these companies will have to pay if they want for-profit healthcare to continue in any form.

 

[Sgt_G]

I don't see many complaining that health care companies make a profit

I've seen a lot of people all over the TV and internet say that companies shouldn't make money selling health insurance. Heck, just look up-topic and you'll find a few statements to that effect.

the problem is the level of obscene profiteering in the health care industry

Any big corperation must turn a profit to stay in business. I am not advocating they should be allowed, quote-unquote "obsecene profiteering". But where, exactly, do you draw the line? When does a reasonable profit turn into "obscene profiteering"? According to two different people up-topic, >ANY< profit made is unreasonable.

There's a lot of stuff that should be non-profit, healthcare being one of them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you provide healthcare and make a profit, the profit you are keeping is money that you could be putting into more healthcare.

 

[Amaris]

I've seen a lot of people all over the TV and internet say that companies shouldn't make money selling health insurance. Heck, just look up-topic and you'll find a few statements to that effect.

Hence "I don't see many..." and I'm talking in this thread.

Any big corperation must turn a profit to stay in business. I am not advocating they should be allowed, quote-unquote "obsecene profiteering". But where, exactly, do you draw the line? When does a reasonable profit turn into "obscene profiteering"? According to two different people up-topic, >ANY< profit made is unreasonable.

I answered it in the part of the post you cut off:

Profit is fine, as long as the primary goal is to take care of the medical needs of each person who requires help. If your primary focus is shareholders, corporate interests, or upper level pay for administrative positions, you're doing it wrong.

What is the focus? If it's patient care, then balance what is necessary to maintain the company while also providing the maximum care allowable. If it's not patient care, then you're not focusing on the right issues. It's far more complex than what I'm offering here, but this isn't some labrynthine problem without a solution. There are countries which work very hard to keep that balance, and it shows in the better health and well-being of their citizens. Here in the U.S., one of the first things asked when you're in the emergency room is "how are you paying today?" That should be a bullshit question forbidden from any emergency room.

 

[UncleRogi]

I've seen a lot of people all over the TV and internet say that companies shouldn't make money selling health insurance. Heck, just look up-topic and you'll find a few statements to that effect.Any big corperation must turn a profit to stay in business. I am not advocating they should be allowed, quote-unquote "obsecene profiteering". But where, exactly, do you draw the line? When does a reasonable profit turn into "obscene profiteering"? According to two different people up-topic, >ANY< profit made is unreasonable.

When you see radical cost difference for procedures and meds even in the same city, there
is your obscene profiteering. One doesn't "shop around" for a needed procedure. Indeed, such
practice is frowned upon if not actively discouraged. Ask a hospital for a cost sheet, you'll get
something vague, and usually in 4-6 weeks. Not very timely, and on purpose.

I've no problem with profit per se, but when insurance companies are determining your
treatment with their eye on their bottom line, something is wrong.

 

[Spot261]

I've seen a lot of people all over the TV and internet say that companies shouldn't make money selling health insurance. Heck, just look up-topic and you'll find a few statements to that effect.Any big corperation must turn a profit to stay in business. I am not advocating they should be allowed, quote-unquote "obsecene profiteering". But where, exactly, do you draw the line? When does a reasonable profit turn into "obscene profiteering"? According to two different people up-topic, >ANY< profit made is unreasonable.

The problem with this is there are other models which do not require any profit at all, models which are not only effective but arguably more so and cheaper. Not for profit taxation costs less per head than insurance bills, does not discriminate on the basis of financial status and comparing on a raw measure of mean life expectancy actually provides a better service.

The reason this idea is so alien to the individualistic American mindset is the idea of paying money which might benefit someone else who did not. For some reason that seems such a terrible thing that you (collectively) would rather pay more for a lesser service than accept your tax dollars were helping someone else.

The decision to look after a person who is sick should be made first, questions about finance should in the worst case at least come later. In my version of the world that person should never be presented with a bill at all because that's exactly what civilised society exists for in the first place.

 

[Timewalker]

In my version of the world that person should never be presented with a bill at all because that's exactly what civilised society exists for in the first place.

For awhile, my province was mailing statements to people who had used clinics and emergency/hospital services, basically saying, "You don't have to pay this, it's not a bill, but it's what your treatment really cost."

The government's idea was to give people some idea of what the real cost of providing treatment was, but most of the public took it as "You're costing the taxpayers a lot of money, now STOP IT!!!!" and so visits to emergency went down, but for the wrong reason. People were afraid to go because they were made to feel guilty, and who knew if the government would change the system and actually start charging for emergency visits. That idea's been floated for a long time, and of course there are people who simply can't comprehend that there are people who can pay either $25 to see a doctor or $25 for a bottle of pills, but they can't afford both.

 

[UncleRogi]

For awhile, my province was mailing statements to people who had used clinics and emergency/hospital services, basically saying, "You don't have to pay this, it's not a bill, but it's what your treatment really cost."

The government's idea was to give people some idea of what the real cost of providing treatment was, but most of the public took it as "You're costing the taxpayers a lot of money, now STOP IT!!!!" and so visits to emergency went down, but for the wrong reason. People were afraid to go because they were made to feel guilty, and who knew if the government would change the system and actually start charging for emergency visits. That idea's been floated for a long time, and of course there are people who simply can't comprehend that there are people who can pay either $25 to see a doctor or $25 for a bottle of pills, but they can't afford both.

An argument most folk wrestle with daily, here in the good ol' US of A.

 

[suarezguy]

People inherently matter and what is the purpose of society if not to benefit those people living within it?

I would say it's to try to prevent people from harming others.

To equate universal healthcare with a lack of individual responsibility is to completely miss the impact made by public spending in health education and preventative care.

I agree we should have health education and we do, I don't know how much more health education or preventative care you have with single-payer health care but the results seem uneven rather than clearly better.

Ah, see, what's happening is that he's turning a right into a moral choice, which is how actual rights are withheld from people.

I don't see how you have a right or actual right to have society as a whole pay for all the doctors, drugs or medical equipment you use at least if your medical problem is due to individual behavior.

It's the same reasoning that says by recognizing LGBT rights, we also condone their behaviors. That is how you start a war on gays, a war on drugs, a war on... well, whatever you want, because it reframes the issue as a moral choice instead of a recognition of one's rights.

You should have the right to be treated equally by the government and employers. That is a moral choice, the right one, that people shouldn't be discriminated because you wouldn't want to be discriminated either so you shouldn't do it to others. There's nothing harmful about LGBT behaviors while there is a lot of harm from smoking, drugs, STDs, alcohol.

 

[Amaris]

I don't see how you have a right or actual right to have society as a whole pay for all the doctors, drugs or medical equipment you use at least if your medical problem is due to individual behavior.

You should have the right to be treated equally by the government and employers. That is a moral choice, the right one, that people shouldn't be discriminated because you wouldn't want to be discriminated either so you shouldn't do it to others. There's nothing harmful about LGBT behaviors while there is a lot of harm from smoking, drugs, STDs, alcohol.

Again, framing it as a moral question. It's not about rights for you, it's about what you think people should get based on how you feel about their morality. You base your reasoning on what you think people deserve.

 

[suarezguy]

What do you think rights are or should be based on? Or laws/policies should be based on?

Yes, I think what people get should be based not on their morality but on their actions and whether or not those actions were moral or immoral (harmless or harmful).

 

[Amaris]

What do you think rights are or should be based on? Or laws/policies should be based on?

If it's something that can be revoked based on what one does to obtain it, it is not a right, but rather a privilege. Your statements here indicate that you believe that people living and dying is a privilege system.

 

[UncleRogi]

I would say it's to try to prevent people from harming others.



I agree we should have health education and we do, I don't know how much more health education or preventative care you have with single-payer health care but the results seem uneven rather than clearly better.



I don't see how you have a right or actual right to have society as a whole pay for all the doctors, drugs or medical equipment you use at least if your medical problem is due to individual behavior.



You should have the right to be treated equally by the government and employers. That is a moral choice, the right one, that people shouldn't be discriminated because you wouldn't want to be discriminated either so you shouldn't do it to others. There's nothing harmful about LGBT behaviors while there is a lot of harm from smoking, drugs, STDs, alcohol.

You seem to think you have a right for the roads you drive on, the privacy of your home, the right to
not be subject to unreasonable search...
With a few tax points, one might have the right to not die in the street.
How is personal greed a moral argument?

 

[suarezguy]

Emergency/lifesaving care is by law provided regardless of ability to pay. I don't think society has an obligation to otherwise fix health problems that individuals have caused to themselves.

How is personal greed a moral argument?

I don't think it's greedy to say there are some things the government shouldn't do and isn't morally obligated to or that tax rates of 95% are unjust and even 70% is excessive.

 

[Spot261]

For awhile, my province was mailing statements to people who had used clinics and emergency/hospital services, basically saying, "You don't have to pay this, it's not a bill, but it's what your treatment really cost."

The government's idea was to give people some idea of what the real cost of providing treatment was, but most of the public took it as "You're costing the taxpayers a lot of money, now STOP IT!!!!" and so visits to emergency went down, but for the wrong reason. People were afraid to go because they were made to feel guilty, and who knew if the government would change the system and actually start charging for emergency visits. That idea's been floated for a long time, and of course there are people who simply can't comprehend that there are people who can pay either $25 to see a doctor or $25 for a bottle of pills, but they can't afford both.

There are times and issues around which I have real doubts about my country, but this is one aspect of which I'm deeply proud.

The most you should get through the post after an A+E visit here should be a referral for follow up care with a specialist (arranged on your behalf at no direct expense to yourself) or a patient experience questionnaire establishing whether you were satisfied with the treatment you received.

Anything else just seems...alien to me

 

[Amaris]

Emergency/lifesaving care is by law provided regardless of ability to pay. I don't think society has an obligation to otherwise fix health problems that individuals have caused to themselves.
...

You are beyond my help on this one. I can't help someone who lacks the basic empathy needed to understand why what you're saying is horrible.

 

[UncleRogi]

Emergency/lifesaving care is by law provided regardless of ability to pay. I don't think society has an obligation to otherwise fix health problems that individuals have caused to themselves.



I don't think it's greedy to say there are some things the government shouldn't do and isn't morally obligated to or that tax rates of 95% are unjust and even 70% is excessive.

Have you read the preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America?



Edit: You share the allusions of our current Mr. Trump. We don't have a PRESIDENT right now.