No because injecting the federal government into the equation is a guarantee to increase costs at a greater rate and quantity than if it were run by private enterprise alone.

 

Really, have you not been paying attention to the rise in insurance costs? Even while the debate was going on.

 

Also, if these companies go out of business who is to say that some not-for-profits won't spring up?

Many of our hospitals and nursing homes are non-profit or not for profit.

 

 

Those run by religious groups yes and I have no problem with that. However they benefit from the advances inherent in a competitive market nonetheless.

Third party payers that are in the healthcare insurance business to make a profit drive up the cost of healthcare to obtain their profit. If we move away from that model in our healthcare insurance, will the costs not go down?

 

According to a post in another thread it would go down about 4%. That is the profit margin for the health insurance companies.

Really, have you not been paying attention to the rise in insurance costs? Even while the debate was going on.

 

Also, if these companies go out of business who is to say that some not-for-profits won't spring up?

 

You did not pay attention to my post. Yes costs are rising, they will rise at a higher rate if you add the federal government to the equation, than if there was only private enterprise involved.

You did not pay attention to my post. Yes costs are rising, they will rise at a higher rate if you add the federal government to the equation, than if there was only private enterprise involved.

 

Why?

Why?

 

Just to name one... because of the inherent inefficiencies of the federal government bureaucracy. Because corporations/business have to run more efficiently and on a budget or they cease to exist. Government just taxes more or pulls funds from one area or another if they go overbudget... They have a much lesser vested interest in operating efficiently because of just those few reasons, than any corp/business. Their current spending patterns reinforce this idea. Unlike the federal government, most normal people/businesses/corps realize that when expenses are greater than income, you do not keep increasing expenses and expecting a different result. That is what the federal government does...

Just to name one... because of the inherent inefficiencies of the federal government bureaucracy. Because corporations/business have to run more efficiently and on a budget or they cease to exist. Government just taxes more or pulls funds from one area or another if they go overbudget... They have a much lesser vested interest in operating efficiently because of just those few reasons, than any corp/business. Their current spending patterns reinforce this idea. Unlike the federal government, most normal people/businesses/corps realize that when expenses are greater than income, you do not keep increasing expenses and expecting a different result. That is what the federal government does...

 

So you drop people who cost you money - people who get sice - which is what I thought insurance was about all along, but apparently it is about profits.

So you drop people who cost you money - people who get sice - which is what I thought insurance was about all along, but apparently it is about profits.

 

Absolutely not, but just like insuring anything, those that carry more risk, pay a higher price than those who carry less risk. I might be able to get used to the idea of making insurance companies not for profits to eliminate the "shareholder/investor" seeming conflict of interest. But they, like many other corps provide a marketable service that people are willing to pay for. If those costs become too great, then let the market be the arbiter of price, not some federal government bureaucracy...

 

A corrollary then (I realize not exactly apples to apples, but close), I guess you think that everyone should pay the same for auto insurance then too? Those costs should not be risk adjusted?

I don't expect my company to make a profit for the shareholders. Getting paid for my labor is not 'profit' in the sense we are talking about, it is a wage/salary.

 

So you want to get paid for your labor but you don't want doctors to? Profit is their wage/salary. The difference between the two is theirs has the potential to go negative, yours doesn't.

So you drop people who cost you money - people who get sice - which is what I thought insurance was about all along, but apparently it is about profits.

 

Yes, it is although a 4% margin isn't what I would consider much profit. Insurance companies were originally set up hundreds (maybe thousands) of years ago as profit enterprises. I think you're confusing health care with health insurance.

In case you didn't know most companies on are in business to make a profit. Not much point in it otherwise.

 

I too am confused.

I don't expect my company to make a profit for the shareholders. Getting paid for my labor is not 'profit' in the sense we are talking about, it is a wage/salary.

 

If you got zero return on your investment as a shareholder, why would you invest your money?

You did not pay attention to my post. Yes costs are rising, they will rise at a higher rate if you add the federal government to the equation, than if there was only private enterprise involved.

 

Great example of that. Government rules affect where schools can buy things. At one point, we couldn't go buy televisions from Walmart even though they were the cheapest. We had to buy off the bid list even if the TV was identical but $100 or $150 more.

 

Walmart was not on the state approved bid list so we weren't allowed to buy things from there and get reimbursed.

Taxes kill business and innovation. This is one big tax hike for a lot of businesses, just ask Caterpillar or John Deere. Caterpillar Inc. said Wednesday it will take a $100 million charge to earnings this quarter to reflect additional taxes stemming from newly enacted U.S. health-care legislation and John Deere expects after-tax expenses to rise by $150 million this year as a result of the health care reform law.

Taxes kill business and innovation. This is one big tax hike for a lot of businesses, just ask Caterpillar or John Deere. Caterpillar Inc. said Wednesday it will take a $100 million charge to earnings this quarter to reflect additional taxes stemming from newly enacted U.S. health-care legislation and John Deere expects after-tax expenses to rise by $150 million this year as a result of the health care reform law.

 

But at least those people who lose their jobs will have affordable health care. Might not be as good as they did have when they had a job but they will have health care.