“Profit” is by definition anything above what breaks even. It’s the only way any business in any field, ever, runs successfully. Including small businesses that employ about 67% of the economy. It does not in any way constitute getting screwed and it seems rather insulting to those people who’ve taken out 2nd mortgages or otherwise gone into debt in order to start a business to say so.
Nobody runs a business in order to “break even”. Nobody in the history of civilization. “Non profits” exist for a reason as a separate tax entity.
Now if you are restricting the discussion to medical and pharmaceuticals then I will be more inclined to agree with you that costs are exorbitant, as there is no way in hell a bag of saline costs $150, or even $50. However you made quite a blanket statement the way you phrased it to include all businesses up there.
As far as U.S. Citizens are concerned…we need to grow a pair and decide whether the hacking by “WikiLeaks”/Russia (which seems be slanted heavily toward the U.S. and the West.) is good or bad…period…not only if it benefits “our side” or not.
As I said above, “getting screwed” is in reference to a social vs free market scenario. If you believe X service should be socialized, by default any non social version means you’re getting screwed to some extent
Setting aside healthcare (which is a lousy model for the discussion of free-market economics, for the reasons I laid out earlier), any ‘screwing’ does not occur in the buyer-seller interaction. In a standard exchange of money for goods/services, both buyer and seller feel like they come out ahead. That is, the buyer values the good/service more highly than she does the money demanded by the seller. Likewise, the seller values the money more highly than she does the good/service provided.
So when you decide to buy a Big Mac, it’s because at that moment, the value of a Big Mac to you is greater than the value of the $5 it takes to acquire it. Likewise, for the McDonald’s franchise, the $5 is worth more than the value of the Big Mac. So one of the paradoxes of the free market is that both parties feel they come out ahead in any given transaction.
Where ‘screwing’ does occur in the free market (according to Marx) is in the relationship between labor and the capitalist (ie, owner). Per Marx, the worker produces value at a greater rate than she is paid, and the capitalist ‘skims off’ and pockets the excess. This is the surplus value theory of profit. (Needless to say, free-market economists object strenuously to this analysis.)
This reflects a cost-allocation issue–an accounting problem. Hospitals have to take in enough money to pay their operating expenses. Unfortunately, some pts cannot pay full freight, and thus represent a net loss on the ledgers. To make up for that loss, hospitals artificially increase the price of goods/services provided to funded pts. It’s how hospitals stay afloat. (I’m sure there are TN accountants who can explain it much better than I.)
Which is why I strongly believe healthcare belongs in the same category as utilities instead of in the same category as cars. A free market THEORETICALLY supports all types of businesses. In practice, some industries are too important to leave at the mercy of free market.
As @countingbeans pointed out to me during our title II debate related to the internet, how much has telephone poll technology improved over the last 30 years? We’re still just sticking big ass piece of wood in the ground, right?
FTR, I agree with what you and @Aragorn have said above related to @pfury’s contention regarding social v free market. I understand what @pfury is trying to say, but it doesn’t jive with reality.
Certainly so. No substantial argument there, as hospitals must stay afloat. As I have stated earlier, I believe healthcare comes down to a cost problem rather than fundamentally a coverage problem. The cost issue has numerous factors contributing to it that wickedly complicate the problem.
In all seriousness, he’s probably so intelligent he doesn’t listen to anyone and does what he wants, which is how he continuously puts his foot in his mouth. Kinda like when you learn Doctors are the worst investors. Think they know it all. Especially when they’ve split siamese twins.
I think that is a faulty analogy (all analogies are faulty to a certain degree of course), as utilities have not innovated whatsoever and the model they run on does not favor innovation at all either. Innovation at all levels is absolutely central to improving healthcare outcomes in my opinion. I think a utilities model would severelt hamper that.
The absolutely free market version is unlikely to work for numerous reasons (note this is not purely free market vs. government subsidy/mandate, this is purely free market va presence of regulations). However I do not believe going all the other way is at all beneficial
I think there is something to that, but also believe a lot of this is communication based. Many professors I know are absolutely brilliant…and completely incapable of communicating to mon-academics. In general many of the “more intelligent” folks have had and continue to have a hard time communicating with an electorate that sees complex issues in black and white (clearly, because otherwise Trump would not have won)
So you’re saying that people are too stupid to make healthcare purchasing decisions. Awefully progressive of you.
You’re missing that the average Joe is already paying for these incredibly expensive procedures through insurance companies. The insurers mearly pass along the costs for the providers, plus administrative costs and profit margins. So what value does the middle man provide? Whether the government or private companies act as middle men, they aren’t really providing that much value.
Except for collective bargaining, which @pfury brought up. Did you know that there are laws preventing people from starting a group solely for purchasing insurance? Why do you think that is? Insurance lobby money perhaps? More government distortion of the market.
I would join a low cost non-profit pool of people to buy catastrophic only coverage and pay cash for all the boring day to day stuff. But sadly I’m not allowed to, because the government has mandated I buy a product I don’t want and exactly which features I may buy. But they called it a tax in the SCOTUS case so I guess it must be okay.
Car insurance doesn’t pay for brakes or oil changes. Nor should it, that’s not what insurance is for.
@pfury profits happen when someone creates value for someone else. Or else they couldn’t charge more than the inputs. Except in the case of coercion, which describes health insurance perfectly.
I fully understand the concept of what profit is. I just don’t believe they need to exist in healthcare, as I believe they belong in a utilities style model at worst, and a socialized model at best.
Car insurance vs health insurance is apples and tomatoes. Just because they’re both red and have seeds doesn’t mean they should be compared.
I think it’s a rather apt comparison. There are alot of minor expenses associated with maintaining a car. Nobody minds paying those, that’s just the cost of car ownership. It’s the accidents that can cause extreme expenses that people insure against.
Likewise the normal maintainence of being alive is realatively cheap (checkups, working out, shots, birth control). It’s the cancer and quadruple bypass that we should be insuring against, not a hangnail trim.
While I see your utility argument, I’d just like to point out I hate utilities. They are government sponsored monopolies with terrible customer service and innovation. What incentive do they have to get better without competition? You’ll note it absolutely sucks to work with health insurance companies, because they are at best oligopalies. What incentive do they have to get better?
No room for profits in healthcare? I’m not sure. There’s room for profits in food, shelter and water. Those are needs. You’ll die without those much faster than you’ll die without healthcare. Even the poor have thousands of vendors to chose from for those goods, but only 4 choices for health insurance most places.
