Comments on: Should Health Care Companies All Be Non-profits? Is Health Care An Industry That We Need To Be Profit-driven?

By: Karma of the Poodle

Karma of the Poodle — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:10:15 +0000

To “how would i know”
If it is so great then why do thousands that CAN afford it go to foreign countries for operations? Not just plastic surgery but for transplants, reconstruction, dental care, ect? Because it costs less to do so, even some of their state of the art facilities even over shadow some of our own. Sweden has some of the best top rate physical therapists in the world as well as the best in alternative healing. Germany has been rated as one of the best in artificially engineered limbs (bionics). We send our doctors to them or have them come here to teach our doctors. Some of the best reconstructive surgeons are in Thailand, Malaysia, and India. I personally go to Mexico to have dental work done for my entire family, you know why? Because, what I would have to pay in co pays is the cost of all of us having cavities filled and teeth cleaned in one visit, THEN I take my receipts and send them off to my insurance company who are thrilled to pay me back up to 85% of costs. Those that do come here for medical care do so due to donations, Doctors without Borders, Religious affiliations, or are recommended by their Universal Health care of THEIR country to come to us or another “approved” country for required care or elective surgery.
If insurance companies were non profit, there would be a change in how things would be handled. But, why would an insurance company want to stay in business without a profit? Using base salary, paying for licenses required by each individual state. Coverage limits are mandated by each Insurance Commission of each state and those that want to do business in that state must carry that minimum of liability on each client as well as be below the highest deductible allowed by that state per occurence per client. You can not do that without a profit base because each state is different in that aspect. If there was a federal mandate of minimum required limits and a minimum and maximum of required deductibles then a health care system and insurance carrier could easily be a non profit entity based on the equalized limits nationally.

By: patrick

patrick — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 03:19:06 +0000

So it’s just the insurance companies that are pariahs eh? Why should drug companies be able to make a profit in your Marxist society? Why not force them to be “non-profit? And why are doctors allowed to make a million a year doing brain surgery? Why not tie their pay to that of , say an auto mechanic… same skill set right?
Your arguments are beautiful, just totally unrealistic. Without profits, no new drug would ever be invented. The right to deny pre-existing conditions is simple: No one would obtain comprehensive health care for thousands a month, if they could simply upgrade to that coverage immediately upon learning they had a serious (and expensive) malady.
You made one serious error in your diatribe. Insurance companies are not allowed in any state to drop a patient who has paid their premiums and develops an illness. Finally, as an essential service (your words) then why are the other essentials you mention water, housing food, all in for profit industries? In fact, the government props up food prices, paying farmers not to grow crops to keep costs high, guarantees water companies a minimum profit through state utility boards, and where they have attempted to interfere in housing costs, such as rent control in NY, have successfully created a huge housing shortage.
Explain those issues in your next screed.

By: how_woul

how_woul — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:08:21 +0000

First, let’s remember that the quality of US health care far exceeds that of the rest of the world. When people in other countries have money.. the choose to come here for care.
Secondly, perhaps you should take a look at the “no profit for food” idea and how it worked out in the USSR.
The trends are clear..
Our for profit health care system has resulted in the best care in the world.
Our for profit food production has resulted in the greatest food producing country in the world.
The ability to turn a profit is a good thing, it encourages efficiency and customer service.. something government run programs have never managed.

By: bmovies6

bmovies6 — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:20:56 +0000

Sahara writes: “U.S. #37 on health care measures”
Ah, theres that WHO ranking that has been debunked so many times, yet the truely clueless still cites it as fact.
I’m always suspicious of the “rankings” released by most international organizations. Typically, they’ll throw in something about “fairness” or “inequality” to make sure that America is ranked below more collectivist-minded nations. This WHO study is no different.
From their report:
In designing the framework for health system performance, WHO broke new methodological ground, employing a technique not previously used for health systems. It compares each country’s system to what the experts estimate to be the upper limit of what can be done with the level of resources available in that country. It also measures what each country’s system has accomplished in comparison with those of other countries.
WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).
______________________
The majority of their indicators are measures of “fairness”, not total health care quality. The U.S. can have the most highly trained doctors, the most advanced medical technology, and the cleanest and most comfortable hospitals…but still rank below a society where the shaman-physicians give the same voodoo to the tribal chief as they do to his subjects.
_______________
So what’s wrong with the WHO and Commonwealth Fund studies? Let me count the ways.
The WHO judged a country’s quality of health on life expectancy. But that’s a lousy measure of a health-care system. Many things that cause premature death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. That’s not a health-care problem.
Similarly, our homicide rate is 10 times higher than in the U.K., eight times higher than in France, and five times greater than in Canada.
When you adjust for these “fatal injury” rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.
Diet and lack of exercise also bring down average life expectancy.
Another reason the U.S. didn’t score high in the WHO rankings is that we are less socialistic than other nations. What has that got to do with the quality of health care? For the authors of the study, it’s crucial. The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how “fairly” health care of any quality is “distributed.” The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but “unequal distribution” would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution.
It’s when this so-called “fairness,” a highly subjective standard, is factored in that the U.S. scores go south.
The U.S. ranking is influenced heavily by the number of people — 45 million — without medical insurance. As I reported in previous columns, our government aggravates that problem by making insurance artificially expensive with, for example, mandates for coverage that many people would not choose and forbidding us to buy policies from companies in another state.
Even with these interventions, the 45 million figure is misleading. Thirty-seven percent of that group live in households making more than $50,000 a year, says the U.S. Census Bureau. Nineteen percent are in households making more than $75,000 a year; 20 percent are not citizens, and 33 percent are eligible for existing government programs but are not enrolled.
For all its problems, the U.S. ranks at the top for quality of care and innovation, including development of life-saving drugs. It “falters” only when the criterion is proximity to socialized medicine. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article…
WHO’s Fooling Who? The World Health Organization’s Problematic Ranking of Health Care Systemshttp://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_…

By: eir

eir — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:46:20 +0000

the majority of hospitals ARE not-for-profit.

By: future

future — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:43:24 +0000

I don’t think being “non-profit” keeps CEOs paying themselves ridiculous salaries. This all sounds like “reform” that won’t really do a damned thing.
We deserve and need public option, NOW.

By: History Will Prove Libs Wrong

History Will Prove Libs Wrong — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:59:48 +0000

You mentioned how food and shelter is neccessary to survival. Well when was the last time you got either of those for free? Besides, if healthcare wasn’t profit driven, quality would decrease, for competition is what improves quality. Why can’t liberals comprehend capitalism?

By: Sahara

Sahara — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:08:15 +0000

It’s how we pay for health care that has profit built in. Why do insurance companies need to be profitable? Any lame brain can deny care. It’s easy. We need innovation in the cost control area that makes sense. We can do things more efficiently and more effectively. I don’t think you need a profit motive to do so but it can help.
I don’t think we need insurance companies. I don’t think they provide anything more than jobs. We can use more jobs in health care – providing care and keeping us all healthy.
U.S. #37 on health care measures – we are #1 on costs.
Clearly there is room for some significant improvement.
We have a backwards system. Get really sick then go to the ER. Can we say stupid and very expensive?