eulero83
Posts: 1470
Joined: 11/4/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: eulero83
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: eulero83
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The 80% is what they have to pay out towards care. The 20% is where operating costs come from. So, all the people that work for the insurance company get paid out of that. All the administrative overhead (paper, utilities, rent, etc.) get paid out of that, too. So, your "20% profit" isn't actual profit. But, the rest of your paragraph is correct. If the cost of care (the amount billed out) increases, premiums will increase, too. Now, what would happen if an insurance company owned care providers?
just change profit with revenue and let's move on. It doesn't change the points as paper, utilities, rent, etc. won't raise if prices are higher.
I'm just making sure the difference between profits and revenues are pointed out. Profit is part of revenue, but they are certainly not the same thing. When people start complaining about excess profits, it's usually left to what revenue is left over after paying all the "payables."
In your opinion, what's more important, the profit margin (%) or profit dollars?
I don't understand what you mean with this question, but looks quite trivial.
It IS a big deal. Which is more, $100B profit, or 10% profit margin? IS $100B profit acceptable if your margins are only 5%? What about $50B profit but @ 20% margins?
quote:
I answer your previous question that I didn't addressed: what if an insurance company owned care providers? it would be an issue becuase they would kill other providers trying to compete with them, it would be a major antitrust's issue. What I'm talking about is even if you want a "free market" health care system for some questionable political reasons you don't have it because of deregulation, the main ingredient of the free market system to work is competition, and in your health care system you don't have it, ergo the high prices.
And, that's what we have here. Insurance providers also own health care systems. There are two main systems in the Toledo, Ohio, area: Promedica and Mercy Health. Between the two of them, they own all the hospitals and many of the medical offices (unless the FTC gets it's way and Promedica won't be allowed to purchase St. Luke's Hospital; the FTC thinks it's going to reduce competition, while St. Luke's says they'll likely have to close). 10 Hospitals are in the Toledo regional area, servicing probably 500k people.
**Update: I was wrong. One hospital is not owned by Promedica or Mercy, and that's the University of Toledo Medical College Hospital.
The idea of competition to those two networks, is to build another hospital, which isn't cheap.
quote:
I address the other post now:
with care providers I meant medical facilities and companies not their employees. To cut it short there is no power balance between seller and buyer.
It's not that I'm against private health care, I used myself more private than public care, becuase in the "shit happens" lottery I've been quite lucky and having a past as semi professional athlete most of my health problems were just temporarely affecting my performance nothing that resting some weeks wouldn't solve or that impaired my life, but if I had to pay your prices for exams or care it just wouldn't be worth as I was not a professional athlete. How was that possible? because private providers have to compete with a public care system so they have to make their prices worth.
You're right, there isn't a balance. But, whose fault is that? The sellers have a service that is in demand (needed, usually). The buyers are motivated to get the services. Isn't that how all markets work? That life extension is being sought doesn't really change anything. We still have to buy food. We still have to buy shelter.
Is food any less important? Is natural gas, heating oil, and/or electricity any less important?
I'll answer all the post here:
about the first question I stand it's trivial I don't know where you are going with that so just expose your point and cut it short.
about the other two parts it all connects with the point freedomdwarf1 made, there is no private interest in providing affordable health care, there are other more profitable investments for the money you need to build an hospital, and that's why food and shelter are different, you can invest less money or earn more with a huge investment, so there is a private interest to provide food at an affordable price. For a private hospital the question is not am I making money, but would I make more money investing all those money in something else?
Natural gas, electricity and water are public services here so they are not really good examples for your point if you add education and trasportation you probably completed the list.
It's not nice to answer a question with another question but... are roads, defence, police and prisons the only very important things?
|
RE: US Health Care Costs - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread