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

[Sava]

Thank you KH...

I feel like:

[ghen]

Government run health care would inevariably turn into another underfunded political battle. I do NOT want the same government that screwed up social security handling my health care!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sava
Thank you KH...

I feel like:

You being the wall, obviously.

[Sava]

Originally posted by ghen
Government run health care would inevariably turn into another underfunded political battle. I do NOT want the same government that screwed up social security handling my health care!

I don't necessarily want it to be government run (and even if it, I would make it apolitical)... it should be non-profit.

Sorry... but profit is fine when your selling TV's, cars, and other consumer goods... or selling services that aren't crucial to human life. But profit needs to take a backseat to human life. Call me a crazy commie or bleeding heart liberal... but I think human life is more important than profit.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Kucinich


You being the wall, obviously.

If the banging smiley is your pathetic teenage attempts at debate and rational thought... then yes... I am the wall standing firm in the face of ignorance and stupidity.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't necessarily want it to be government run (and even if it, I would make it apolitical)... it should be non-profit.

It obviously already is, given the fact that non-profit hospitals exist for them to study... but why would you forbid a person from building a for-profit hospital? If the service really is less cost-effective from the pov of the consumer, why would they use it?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Cost efficiency for an electrical company would be number of kilowatt hours delivered divided by what they spent in dollars.

That's cost-efficiency for a customer - kilowatt-hours delivered divided by what they paid in dollars.

You're a moron. Go look up the definition of cost efficiency. There's no such thing as "cost efficiency for the investor". There's a perfectly serviceable measure known as "return on investment" which measures what you're describing. There's absolutely no reason to confuse the two terms.

In addition, the measure of cost efficiency has nothing to do with the customer. The price the business charges for the good or service in question does not necessarily correspond to the amount of money providing that good or service costs the business.

To summarize: profit/value of capital = return on investment

goods delivered/costs incurred in delivering them = cost efficiency

goods delivered/price paid by the consumer is completely separate from either. I know there's a term for this but can't come up with it right now.

[chequita guevara]

The forces of darkness and ignorence are ever ready to fight you, Sava.

[Kuciwalker]

Whatever... as the entire argument stemmed from me asking for clarification of the article...

[Spiffor]

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

Well...


DUH

[Aeson]

Exactly Spiffor!

CostOfProduction = Price1
CostOfProduction + Profit = Price2

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kucinich
If the service really is less cost-effective from the pov of the consumer, why would they use it?

Mostly because they have no choice. Most of the U.S.'s non-profit hospitals were either converted or purchased during the 80s and 90s. In the U.S., there aren't many non-profits left. Those that are usually underfunded government hospitals, ghen's point being made. The comparison in the article is between Canadian non-profits and American for-profits.

I'm not sure there is necessarily a fair comparison, since Canada has better health care in general, it is more likely that their hospitals don't see as many serious cases as American hospitals do, problems being more likely to be caught early and treated before hospitalization becomes necessary.

It's still an indictment of the system, regardless.

[Spiffor]

The most interesting part is this: it shows where your health money goes to waste in a profit environment:

Devereaux and colleagues earlier showed that for-profit hospitals had higher death rates.

"The reality is that for-profits face significant economic challenges. The first is they have to generate revenues that will satisfy shareholders," Devereaux said.

"Second, they have high executive bonuses. Thirdly, they are very top-heavy and have high administrative costs. Also, they have to pay taxes. That is a lot of extra money that they have to come up with," Devereaux added.

"Instead of finding new efficiencies, folks were cutting corners in quality health care, and also people were having to pay more for care."

I especially love the "high administrative costs" bout, because the main criticism against public hospitals is the bureaucracy / inefficiency.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Mostly because they have no choice. Most of the non-profit hospitals were either converted or purchased during the 80s and 90s. In the U.S., there aren't many non-profits left. Those that are usually underfunded government hospitals, ghen's point being made. The comparison in the article is between Canadian non-profits and American for-profits.

What kept the same thing from happening to the Canadian hostpitals as the American?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kucinich
What kept the same thing from happening to the Canadian hostpitals as the American?

I am no specialist by any standard, but I'd imagine the answer is regulation