Study says "For Profit" hospitals cost more than non-profits

[Sava]

Originally posted by Kucinich
The two aren't one and the same - how do you know it meant both?

Partially because I'm familiar with other such studies. Having a bit of knowledge about the subject before reading this, I was able to pick up on the implication in the article. My mother also works as a Director of Sales for a major for-profit health care company. Her opinions on the matter also substantiate the various studies and readings I'm familiar with.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
So, a private enterprise hospital might have to invest heavily in marketing and advertising, which is something a state-suckling entity would not do much of at all. Bang, up go your costs and down goes your 'efficiency'.

Is this an argument against the efficiency of non-profit hospitals? That they don't have to spend money on useless things like advertizing? All you're doing is explaining why the for-profit is less efficient.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
The US healthcare system, while not being perfect, does not necessarily cast people adrift.

Except for the 40+ million of us without health coverage.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Did you even read his post, che? Honestly!

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Asher

I find it hard to believe you didn't know Spiffor was a communist.

Obviously everyone in the world knows all of Spiffor's political leanings. I don't live in the OT, I know a few people here, and a bit of their political leanings. Even those I know, I barely know on this issue. NYE's standpoint in this thread was something I didn't quite expect from him, and I know more about him than most (by quite a bit too).

Maybe you should get out more. There is a huge world out there, it isn't just the Poly OT. That's not a dig at the OT, lot of interesting people here. I just don't know them all and their political stance on every subject like you seem to think is a basic necessity of life.

What happened since was I was defending my comment, and you've got all pissed off because you thought it was misinterpreted.

Asher and his crystal ball guessing at people's feelings, intents, opinions, and disregarding what they actually say...

Of course you were defending your comment(s), at least part of it. You run and hide every time your inane "it's a variable" is mentioned. You've also dropped at least half the points you made once they are responded to, failing to address the response.

And what I'm telling you is, the way you posted it in the context you did, the issue wasn't someone misinterpreting it, it was how you said it.

And we spent a few hours trying to clear up that miscommunication... I know you didn't understand my intent. I never said you did (quite the contrary ). That's fine. I can explain further. At least I could, if there was a rational reader on the other end who is willing to accept an explaination. That's obviously not you.

Probably other people didn't understand too. Some may have. It has to do with the mindset of the reader and writer, and how they mesh. I'm insane (and the precept of the post was so simple), so maybe not a lot of people understand my statements first off. You're fundamentalist, and don't accept explainations that differ from your initial opinions. I'd rather be the insane one.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Asher
In theory, a private market introduces competition. When you do not have competition, you become complacent with costs. Beurocracy increases, innovation decreases, etc.

So the formulas he used wold be incorrect in the sense of saying that one will always be lower than the other.

My comment was dealing with non-profit vs for-profit (in a static environment). It had no qualifier as to whether that non-profit and/or for-profit is in a command or free market. Because that was one of the factors that wasn't being isolated.

There are non-profit organizations in free markets with competition. Red herring.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Aeson
Asher and his crystal ball guessing at people's feelings, intents, opinions, and disregarding what they actually say...

This is entirely the point -- I didn't know your intent because you didn't express it. The context you posted the comment in makes it incorrect. Period. I don't care what you thought you were saying, it's not what you said.

Tip: "CPA" in Spiffor's location field means "Communist Party of Apolyton".

[Asher]

Originally posted by Aeson
My comment was dealing with non-profit vs for-profit (in a static environment). It had no qualifier as to whether that non-profit and/or for-profit is in a command or free market. Because that was one of the factors that wasn't being isolated.

There are non-profit organizations in free markets with competition. Red herring.

How can that be a red herring when it's not responding to your argument?

Surely even though you're knew to the OT, you understand what the 'originally posted by' means in a quote?

[Aeson]

Tip: "CPA" in Spiffor's location field means "Communist Party of Apolyton".

Thanks. Certified Public Accountant could be confusing.

How can that be a red herring when it's not responding to your argument?

It was referencing my post. You don't have to directly respond to a statement to reference it.

"So the formulas he used wold be incorrect in the sense of saying that one will always be lower than the other."

I'm assuming wold is "would".

"He", used with "formulas", references me. I don't care what your intent was, that was how I read it and the context of this thread. The writer (you) is responsible for making me understand. Don't bother trying to explain if it is otherwise because your intent was to reference my formulas.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Asher

This is entirely the point -- I didn't know your intent because you didn't express it.

It's good that you can admit your ignorance on the issue. Normally though, instead of jumping to conclusions about what the point is, the easiest way to divine intent is to ask. And then accept the answer.

The context you posted the comment in makes it incorrect.

The context of your state of mind. Yes, of course it is incorrect in that instance. Who cares? That wasn't the context it was offered in, which has now been explained to you. Which you of course say doesn't matter. Because, the context of a post obviously doesn't matter.

You just keep refuting what you are saying over and over.

I don't care what you thought you were saying, it's not what you said.

[asher]Ok, what do you mean by "wold" then? You said wold... You obviously meant to say wold. It's a really stupid thing to say as it makes no sense in the context of this thread. Your entire statement is wrong and cannot be explained because I don't know what you mean by wold.

"So the formulas he used [The yellow dye obtained from dyer's rocket] be incorrect in the sense of saying that one will always be lower than the other."[/asher]

[Aeson]

...saying that one will always be lower than the other.

Just a technicality, but I did not include the statement "Price1 > Price2", which you are assuming.

Obviously it would be incorrect as Profit could also be a negative number. You assumed "Price1 > Price2", and you are wrong because you fail to see that Profit can be a negative number.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Aeson
It was referencing my post. You don't have to directly respond to a statement to reference it.

I was responding to Spiffor's comment. You can't reply to my response to Spiffor and then claim it's a red herring...

"He", used with "formulas", references me. I don't care what your intent was, that was how I read it and the context of this thread.

It referenced you, but the point you were arguing about was not your argument, but Spiffor's interpretation. You quoted my reply to Spiffor and called it a red herring against yours.

I don't care HOW you read that, that's just stupid.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Aeson
The context of your state of mind.

No, of the thread. A communist expresses his opinion that a non-profit hospital will always be more efficient, you reply "DUH" and provide a formula which mathematically would say the same thing, then get all confused why people would think that's what you meant.

You keep harping about what you meant. I've said a hundred times now I don't care about what you meant or what you wanted to say, I was just pointing out what you did say. It's simple...

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Asher


I was responding to Spiffor's comment. You can't reply to my response to Spiffor and then claim it's a red herring...

I can if you are using a red herring in your response to Spiffor. Especially considering that the red herring was dealing with something you were attributing to my statement.

It referenced you, but the point you were arguing about was not your argument, but Spiffor's interpretation. You quoted my reply to Spiffor and called it a red herring against yours.

"In theory, a private market introduces competition. When you do not have competition, you become complacent with costs. Beurocracy increases, innovation decreases, etc.

So the formulas he used wold be incorrect in the sense of saying that one will always be lower than the other." - Asher

The "So" links the prior paragraph's reasoning to my formula. You are saying your bull about competition (free market vs command) was included in my formula when it definitely does not.

I don't care HOW you read that, that's just stupid.

"The context you posted the comment in makes it incorrect. Period. I don't care what you thought you were saying, it's not what you said." - Asher

you reply "DUH"

Nope. Spiffor said "DUH". You misinterpreted my response to mean the same thing, then you failed to acknowlege my explaination as to what it really was referencing. I 'agree' with something nonsensical (In my own eyes) as a joke. I'm sorry you don't have the flexibility in your sense of humor to appreciate that. I'm somewhat disturbed you don't have the flexibility in your viewpoint to accept an explaination of it when plainly stated.

I don't fault you for misinterpretation, that is easily fixed with rational discussion. I fault you for intentional ignorance after the fact.

...provide a formula which mathematically would say the same thing

Nope! You are forgetting that I didn't compare Price1 to Price2. That was left to the reader.

You are the one that says "Price1 > Price2". That is your own conjuration. You came up with it because of your inability to understand that Profit could be a negative number.

...then get all confused why people would think that's what you meant.

I know why you think that's what I meant. It's not confusing at all. We've already addressed that issue.

You seem to think you speak for everyone on Apolyton. Let them speak for themselves. Try "I" instead of "people", unless you are multiple people... Or are you too afraid to stand up to me as yourself, and instead need to conjure up multiple supporters of your opinion to feel confident enough to argue with me?

I was just pointing out what you did say. It's simple...

This is how you would point out what I did say:

"Exactly Spiffor!

CostOfProduction = Price1
CostOfProduction + Profit = Price2" - Aeson

You didn't "just" do that, you instead pointed out your own personal interpretation of what I did say as well. You have every right to do so, but at least reference what you were doing correctly instead of lying about it.

"I understand you made a statement which is valid strictly mathematically." - Asher

"You say you used them to isolate profit margin -- such a thing is so fundamental that I have to believe you're ****ting me." - Asher

It obviously is simple. All you have to do is accept that it was offered simply. Instead you continually insist on making it less than simple to support your own convoluted misinterpretation of my statement. You added:

CostOfProduction != CostOfProduction
"CostOfProduction depends on the market situation, which is dramatically different across both situations." - Asher

Price1 > Price2
"So the formulas he used wold be incorrect in the sense of saying that one will always be lower than the other." - Asher

You further mangled the initial statements to read:

CommandModifier * CostOfProduction = Price1
FreeMarketModifier * CostOfProduction + Profit = Price2
"In theory, a private market introduces competition. When you do not have competition, you become complacent with costs. Beurocracy increases, innovation decreases, etc." - Asher

This is in fact what you have been refuting:

CommandModifier * CostOfProduction = Price1
FreeMarketModifier * CostOfProduction + Profit = Price2
CommandModifier * CostOfProduction != FreeMarketModifier * CostOfProduction
Price1 > Price2

Which of course is not the same thing as I posted.

Then you try to say my statements must be interpreted in a context that includes Spiffor's political leanings. You then deny that my statements must be interpreted in a context that includes my own personal leanings. In essence, you want all context to be determined by you, acknowleging anything which may support your stance, and disallowing anything which may undermine it.

In short, you are a fundamentalist.

Context of the participants mindset is either applicable or it's not. I admit that my response to Spiffor could have been confusing, and so have further explained it. You on the other hand will not take any responsibility for your misinterpretation.

You can't pick and choose and claim any intellectual integrity. You are just waffling back and forth along the issue of context.

[pchang]

Originally posted by Sava
what do you mean by "non-existent"? Don't tell me your a free-marketeer blinded by ideology? I hope I'm misunderstanding you.

Oerdin's post said that non-profit hospitals were going bankrupt and closing.