info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Charity hospitals
171 views
Skip to first unread message
Hank
Feb 8, 2016, 5:02:07 AM2/8/16
to
Since we all have to have health insurance, why shouldn't the hospitals lose their tax exempt status?
Hank
Hank
Vito
Feb 8, 2016, 8:05:24 AM2/8/16
to
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 02:02:06 -0800 (PST), Hank <nineb...@aol.com>
wrote:
>Since we all have to have health insurance, why shouldn't the hospitals lose their tax exempt status?
>
>Hank
Good question! Same goes for all the church/charity owned profit
makers that are not directly used for church/charity activities.
wrote:
>Since we all have to have health insurance, why shouldn't the hospitals lose their tax exempt status?
>
>Hank
makers that are not directly used for church/charity activities.
nothermark
Feb 8, 2016, 9:11:11 AM2/8/16
to
>Since we all have to have health insurance, why shouldn't the hospitals lose their tax exempt status?
>
>Hank
Why would they??
>
>Hank
Ralph E Lindberg
Feb 8, 2016, 9:58:10 AM2/8/16
to
was president of his church council he had the city take the churches
parking lot off "tax exempt" rolls. As the church was renting out the
spots. The city told him they were the first church in town that they
didn't have to fight with over that change
Lone Haranguer
Feb 8, 2016, 11:09:59 AM2/8/16
to
On 2/8/2016 3:02 AM, Hank wrote:
> Since we all have to have health insurance, why shouldn't the hospitals lose their tax exempt status?
>
> Hank
>
Until they change the rules for "non-profit" entities that probably
> Since we all have to have health insurance, why shouldn't the hospitals lose their tax exempt status?
>
> Hank
>
won't happen.
AARP rakes in millions...and has its fingers in many pies..yet it's
considered a non-profit.
Planned Parenthood carries a "surplus" of many millions of dollars...but
it's still considered a non-profit.
They divide up their various sources of income and the bookkeeper makes
certain nothing is shown as a profit.
***********
"In particular, the salary of Planned Parenthood Federation of
America's (PPFA) president and CEO Cecile Richards was $590,928 last
year – an increase of 40 percent since 2011.
Dec 24, 2015
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=salary+for+head+of+planned+parenthood
*********************
Proving that abortion is a lucrative business...
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Feb 8, 2016, 11:13:14 AM2/8/16
to
Now you've gone and done it. Posting anything that shows religious
groups in a favorable light will irk the hell out of Vito and Oz.
Maybe they will be able to post a similar story about health care
sponsored by atheists?
But I doubt it.
***************
Vito
Feb 8, 2016, 2:44:31 PM2/8/16
to
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 09:13:16 -0700, Lone Haranguer <linu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Bla bla ba bla .....
these cheaters including Planned Parenthood's abortion business AND
the Catholic Church.
When faced with loss of their tax exemption because of their lobbying,
NRA split off the lobbying group into the ILA, which pays taxes and
for which one cannot deduct contributions. If NRA can do it so can
Planned Parenthood, Red Cross and the various churches.
wrote:
Bla bla ba bla .....
>Proving that abortion is a lucrative business...
>
>LZ
No. proving that we need to change the rules and slap a tax on ALL of
>
>LZ
these cheaters including Planned Parenthood's abortion business AND
the Catholic Church.
When faced with loss of their tax exemption because of their lobbying,
NRA split off the lobbying group into the ILA, which pays taxes and
for which one cannot deduct contributions. If NRA can do it so can
Planned Parenthood, Red Cross and the various churches.
Lone Haranguer
Feb 8, 2016, 4:41:35 PM2/8/16
to
The NRA is the oldest protector of civil rights in the USA.
Total Lobbying Expenditures of Planned Parenthood in 2015:
$1,368,408
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000591
AARP: Total Lobbying Expenditures in 2015: $7,559,000
Public employees union: Total for Public Sector Employee Unions:
$13,443,787
LZ
Vito
Feb 8, 2016, 7:09:19 PM2/8/16
to
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 14:41:36 -0700, Lone Haranguer <linu...@gmail.com>
You went to Catholic schools. Now at 84 you still cannot comprehend
what you read. As bad as they are you are a poster child for public
schools.
what you read. As bad as they are you are a poster child for public
schools.
nothermark
Feb 9, 2016, 1:10:43 AM2/9/16
to
bills. As some folks here keep telling me it all comes back to the
consumers.
Vito
Feb 9, 2016, 10:39:59 AM2/9/16
to
On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:10:41 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
wrote:
>I'm just trying to figure out why you want to run up our medical
>bills. As some folks here keep telling me it all comes back to the
>consumers.
To level the playing field.
wrote:
>I'm just trying to figure out why you want to run up our medical
>bills. As some folks here keep telling me it all comes back to the
>consumers.
nothermark
Feb 9, 2016, 12:38:09 PM2/9/16
to
Vito
Feb 9, 2016, 12:54:32 PM2/9/16
to
On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 12:38:07 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
hospital. You make a profit and pay taxes. Competition with the
hospital across town keeps prices in line. Enter Father Jones and his
church's hospital. He suckers parishoners into doing much of the
cleaning and scrubing at his place plus he pays no taxes so he can
charge less for his services. Good thing? Sure - temporarily. Soon
you and the dude across town are forced out of business and now
Father Jones can, and does, charge anything he wants, justifying it
because God needs the money. That's the history of hospitals in much
of the country.
wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:39:22 -0500, Vito <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:10:41 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I'm just trying to figure out why you want to run up our medical
>>>bills. As some folks here keep telling me it all comes back to the
>>>consumers.
>>
>>To level the playing field.
>
>In what way?
Imagine yourself owning a normal for profit business - in this case a
>On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:39:22 -0500, Vito <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:10:41 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I'm just trying to figure out why you want to run up our medical
>>>bills. As some folks here keep telling me it all comes back to the
>>>consumers.
>>
>>To level the playing field.
>
>In what way?
hospital. You make a profit and pay taxes. Competition with the
hospital across town keeps prices in line. Enter Father Jones and his
church's hospital. He suckers parishoners into doing much of the
cleaning and scrubing at his place plus he pays no taxes so he can
charge less for his services. Good thing? Sure - temporarily. Soon
you and the dude across town are forced out of business and now
Father Jones can, and does, charge anything he wants, justifying it
because God needs the money. That's the history of hospitals in much
of the country.
George Anthony
Feb 9, 2016, 1:12:35 PM2/9/16
to
Vito <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 12:38:07 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:39:22 -0500, Vito <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:10:41 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm just trying to figure out why you want to run up our medical
>>>> bills. As some folks here keep telling me it all comes back to the
>>>> consumers.
>>>
>>> To level the playing field.
>>
>> In what way?
>
> Imagine yourself owning a normal for profit business - in this case a
> hospital. You make a profit and pay taxes. Competition with the
> hospital across town keeps prices in line. Enter Father Jones and his
> church's hospital. He suckers parishoners into doing much of the
> cleaning and scrubing at his place plus he pays no taxes so he can
> charge less for his services. Good thing? Sure - temporarily. Soon
> you and the dude across town are forced out of business and now
> Father Jones can, and does, charge anything he wants, justifying it
> because God needs the money. That's the history of hospitals in much
> of the country.
>
You are a bitter old man.
> On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 12:38:07 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:39:22 -0500, Vito <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:10:41 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm just trying to figure out why you want to run up our medical
>>>> bills. As some folks here keep telling me it all comes back to the
>>>> consumers.
>>>
>>> To level the playing field.
>>
>> In what way?
>
> Imagine yourself owning a normal for profit business - in this case a
> hospital. You make a profit and pay taxes. Competition with the
> hospital across town keeps prices in line. Enter Father Jones and his
> church's hospital. He suckers parishoners into doing much of the
> cleaning and scrubing at his place plus he pays no taxes so he can
> charge less for his services. Good thing? Sure - temporarily. Soon
> you and the dude across town are forced out of business and now
> Father Jones can, and does, charge anything he wants, justifying it
> because God needs the money. That's the history of hospitals in much
> of the country.
>
Major Oz
Feb 9, 2016, 1:24:00 PM2/9/16
to
Lone Haranguer
Feb 9, 2016, 2:28:09 PM2/9/16
to
My reading skills are well documented. In the 2nd grade I was tested
for reading and vocabulary on a state test and had the reading and
vocabulary skills of a 6th grader. In 6th grade I was tested again and
had the reading and vocabulary skills of a high school graduate.
At that time Minnesota was on top in education rankings.
Poster child for public schools? With your reading and spelling skills
you would still be in 3rd grade in the school I attended.
Why isn't Planned Parenthood following suit? You're a diehard supporter
of their activities, why don't you start harassing them about
their fat cash surplus.
Obviously their lobbying activities is why they are still getting
taxpayer money to pay their chief executive nearly $600,000 a year.
LZ
Major Oz
Feb 9, 2016, 3:53:26 PM2/9/16
to
...heh,heh...
Vito
Feb 9, 2016, 4:38:10 PM2/9/16
to
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 12:28:09 -0700, Lone Haranguer <linu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>My reading skills are well documented. In the 2nd grade I was tested
>for reading and vocabulary on a state test and had the reading and
>vocabulary skills of a 6th grader. In 6th grade I was tested again and
>had the reading and vocabulary skills of a high school graduate.
There is reading and then there is comprehending, two different
things.
I have better things on my bucket list. If you could comprehend what
I said you'd see that I advocated PP, and churches, and, and, ...
being taxed on profits
million back. I'm not saying it is right but it is so embeded that
neither you nor I can change it. At least Planned Parenthood does
good with some of the money.
wrote:
>My reading skills are well documented. In the 2nd grade I was tested
>for reading and vocabulary on a state test and had the reading and
>vocabulary skills of a 6th grader. In 6th grade I was tested again and
>had the reading and vocabulary skills of a high school graduate.
things.
>
>
>Why isn't Planned Parenthood following suit? You're a diehard supporter
>of their activities, why don't you start harassing them about
>their fat cash surplus.
For the very same reasons that you ignore the lavish life of the Pope.
>
>Why isn't Planned Parenthood following suit? You're a diehard supporter
>of their activities, why don't you start harassing them about
>their fat cash surplus.
I have better things on my bucket list. If you could comprehend what
I said you'd see that I advocated PP, and churches, and, and, ...
being taxed on profits
>
>Obviously their lobbying activities is why they are still getting
>taxpayer money to pay their chief executive nearly $600,000 a year.
>
>LZ
That is the American way. Invest $1 million in bribes and get $100
>Obviously their lobbying activities is why they are still getting
>taxpayer money to pay their chief executive nearly $600,000 a year.
>
>LZ
million back. I'm not saying it is right but it is so embeded that
neither you nor I can change it. At least Planned Parenthood does
good with some of the money.
Vito
Feb 9, 2016, 5:30:52 PM2/9/16
to
nothermark
Feb 10, 2016, 12:38:20 AM2/10/16
to
That includes some of the best.
Some of us find ripping off sick people to satisfy shareholders to be
morally reprehensible. That is the basis of the bias against a lot of
medical costs.
RMcBane
Feb 10, 2016, 12:56:55 AM2/10/16
to
open in our area offering a variety of medical
services that once were only available at a
hospital and at much cheaper prices than any of
the hospitals (both non and for profit) charge.
The range or services seems to be growing
including canning services of a variety of sorts
and even a a variety of day services that
hospitals would normally do in the OR.
Sorry, but you are not going to convince me that
capitalism doesn't lead to better and cheaper
medical services.
--
Richard McBane
RMcBane
Feb 10, 2016, 1:02:52 AM2/10/16
to
Hank
Feb 10, 2016, 4:54:45 AM2/10/16
to
On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 12:38:20 AM UTC-5, nothermark wrote:
> You do realize that NYS prohibits for profit hospitals, don't you?
> That includes some of the best.
>
> Some of us find ripping off sick people to satisfy shareholders to be
> morally reprehensible. That is the basis of the bias against a lot of
> medical costs.
If the hospitals in NY is like here, each and every hosp. has some kinda large building construction going on. The construction is in the name of "research". No profit, just empire building. All done on taxpayer/insurance money.
> You do realize that NYS prohibits for profit hospitals, don't you?
> That includes some of the best.
>
> Some of us find ripping off sick people to satisfy shareholders to be
> morally reprehensible. That is the basis of the bias against a lot of
> medical costs.
Hank
nothermark
Feb 10, 2016, 6:49:28 AM2/10/16
to
have? Or more like the complex of hospital owned out patient places
for things like surgery or semi surgical procedures like
colonoscopies?
Then there is the Kaiser Permanente system or LZ's favorite the Mayo
Clinic? Then there is Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston and
probably a fair number more I do not know about.
The point is that they pressure on non profits is to find cost
effective ways to get people healthy. The pressure on for profit is
to keep people sick and/or paying large bills. That was why Janet was
forking over $19 thou to get treated for each of her cancer
occurrences. In NY she would have gotten treated at significantly
less cost. You can figure whatever a not for profit would charge plus
20% as a good starting point.
nothermark
Feb 10, 2016, 6:51:54 AM2/10/16
to
situation...
nothermark
Feb 10, 2016, 6:55:57 AM2/10/16
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 01:54:43 -0800 (PST), Hank <nineb...@aol.com>
wrote:
Don't neglect the donations. Tom Golisano has his name on at least
one building on each of the local hospital complexes. ;-)
wrote:
one building on each of the local hospital complexes. ;-)
Vito
Feb 10, 2016, 10:48:24 AM2/10/16
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 00:38:16 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
Francisco would come up with.
wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 12:53:49 -0500, Vito <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 12:38:07 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:39:22 -0500, Vito <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:10:41 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I'm just trying to figure out why you want to run up our medical
>>>>>bills. As some folks here keep telling me it all comes back to the
>>>>>consumers.
>>>>
>>>>To level the playing field.
>>>
>>>In what way?
>>
>>Imagine yourself owning a normal for profit business - in this case a
>>hospital. You make a profit and pay taxes. Competition with the
>>hospital across town keeps prices in line. Enter Father Jones and his
>>church's hospital. He suckers parishoners into doing much of the
>>cleaning and scrubing at his place plus he pays no taxes so he can
>>charge less for his services. Good thing? Sure - temporarily. Soon
>>you and the dude across town are forced out of business and now
>>Father Jones can, and does, charge anything he wants, justifying it
>>because God needs the money. That's the history of hospitals in much
>>of the country.
>
>You do realize that NYS prohibits for profit hospitals, don't you?
>That includes some of the best.
No. Goofiest idea I ever heard of. Sounds like something San
>On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 12:53:49 -0500, Vito <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 12:38:07 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:39:22 -0500, Vito <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:10:41 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I'm just trying to figure out why you want to run up our medical
>>>>>bills. As some folks here keep telling me it all comes back to the
>>>>>consumers.
>>>>
>>>>To level the playing field.
>>>
>>>In what way?
>>
>>Imagine yourself owning a normal for profit business - in this case a
>>hospital. You make a profit and pay taxes. Competition with the
>>hospital across town keeps prices in line. Enter Father Jones and his
>>church's hospital. He suckers parishoners into doing much of the
>>cleaning and scrubing at his place plus he pays no taxes so he can
>>charge less for his services. Good thing? Sure - temporarily. Soon
>>you and the dude across town are forced out of business and now
>>Father Jones can, and does, charge anything he wants, justifying it
>>because God needs the money. That's the history of hospitals in much
>>of the country.
>
>You do realize that NYS prohibits for profit hospitals, don't you?
>That includes some of the best.
Francisco would come up with.
Vito
Feb 10, 2016, 10:56:24 AM2/10/16
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 06:49:24 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
Well, gee, then we ought to apply the same to all businesses,
especially manufacturers and farmers. No Fords sold in NY until Ford
goes nonprofit. Ditto bread bakeries and chicken farms. After all it
has worked so well in other countries, right??
especially manufacturers and farmers. No Fords sold in NY until Ford
goes nonprofit. Ditto bread bakeries and chicken farms. After all it
has worked so well in other countries, right??
RMcBane
Feb 10, 2016, 12:44:26 PM2/10/16
to
other health care professionals working in for
profit facilities are trying to keep people sick?
Yes there are reports of some unscrupulous
individuals milking the insurance industry and
medicare, but do you believe that it is a common
practice? If so, good look in finding a doctor.
--
Richard McBane
nothermark
Feb 10, 2016, 1:04:09 PM2/10/16
to
St money grabbers get it. ;-)
Major Oz
Feb 10, 2016, 1:06:33 PM2/10/16
to
nothermark
Feb 10, 2016, 1:08:16 PM2/10/16
to
possible. That is why they change models. Bakeries and farms are
even less connected. Making a profit for them is keeping us
satisfied. Making profits for the medical business is keeping us sick
and worried about it. Huuge difference. ;-)
Dusty
Feb 10, 2016, 1:16:04 PM2/10/16
to
How about rental or mortgage companies 'ripping off' homeless people?
Or perhaps car dealers 'ripping off' pedestrians?
Society has been based around the exchange of "work product" (read:
Money) for things or services rendered for a long, long time. Unless
you're a liberal democrat, then you just whine and use elected
officials, using the force of government, to reach into the pockets of
working folks to make up for their own incompetence and lack of
accomplishment.
As long folks continue to drink, smoke, choose their food poorly, sit on
their ample behinds, play with dangerous things, and do other stupid
things with their bodies, they have both the right as well as the
obligation for paying for their acquired maladies. As long as an
'industrial-complex' composed of doctors, pharmacologists, and lawyers
continue to have sway in our lives, those services will always cost more
than they are worth.
Dusty
--
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out whom you are not allowed
to criticize." -- Voltaire
nothermark
Feb 10, 2016, 1:37:46 PM2/10/16
to
Most are good people who want success in the form of me getting
better.
OTOH for medical management professionals all bets are off. They are
the folks who call the shots for length of stay and often protocols
used. Their purview is money not health.
Vito
Feb 10, 2016, 2:32:45 PM2/10/16
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:08:14 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
The notion that MDs, hospitals, clinics, et al, are trying to keep us
sick flies in the face of all my experience. Every MD, etc. I have
ever encountered did their best to shorten my illness. And all were
in business to earn a buck ... just like a farmer.
sick flies in the face of all my experience. Every MD, etc. I have
ever encountered did their best to shorten my illness. And all were
in business to earn a buck ... just like a farmer.
nothermark
Feb 10, 2016, 2:42:00 PM2/10/16
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:15:59 -0800, Dusty <Dus...@InnerLodge.com>
wrote:
I take it you have not had significant medical problems.
wrote:
RMcBane
Feb 10, 2016, 2:50:54 PM2/10/16
to
doctors dictate length of stays. The
administration focuses on coding to make certain
that they are paid for services rendered and in
that sense their purview is money not health. But
this applies to both for profit and not for profit
hospitals.
--
Richard McBane
Dusty
Feb 10, 2016, 3:04:08 PM2/10/16
to
On 10-Feb-16 11:41, nothermark wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:15:59 -0800, Dusty <Dus...@InnerLodge.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 09-Feb-16 21:38, nothermark wrote:
>>> On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 12:53:49 -0500, Vito <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
...<snippage>...
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:15:59 -0800, Dusty <Dus...@InnerLodge.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 09-Feb-16 21:38, nothermark wrote:
>>> On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 12:53:49 -0500, Vito <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> You do realize that NYS prohibits for profit hospitals, don't you?
>>> That includes some of the best.
>>>
>>> Some of us find ripping off sick people to satisfy shareholders to be
>>> morally reprehensible. That is the basis of the bias against a lot of
>>> medical costs.
>> Do you feel the same way about grocery stores 'ripping off' hungry people?
>> How about rental or mortgage companies 'ripping off' homeless people?
>> Or perhaps car dealers 'ripping off' pedestrians?
>> Society has been based around the exchange of "work product" (read:
>> Money) for things or services rendered for a long, long time. Unless
>> you're a liberal democrat, then you just whine and use elected
>> officials, using the force of government, to reach into the pockets of
>> working folks to make up for their own incompetence and lack of
>> accomplishment.
>> As long folks continue to drink, smoke, choose their food poorly, sit on
>> their ample behinds, play with dangerous things, and do other stupid
>> things with their bodies, they have both the right as well as the
>> obligation for paying for their acquired maladies. As long as an
>> 'industrial-complex' composed of doctors, pharmacologists, and lawyers
>> continue to have sway in our lives, those services will always cost more
>> than they are worth.
>>
>>> That includes some of the best.
>>>
>>> Some of us find ripping off sick people to satisfy shareholders to be
>>> morally reprehensible. That is the basis of the bias against a lot of
>>> medical costs.
>> Do you feel the same way about grocery stores 'ripping off' hungry people?
>> How about rental or mortgage companies 'ripping off' homeless people?
>> Or perhaps car dealers 'ripping off' pedestrians?
>> Society has been based around the exchange of "work product" (read:
>> Money) for things or services rendered for a long, long time. Unless
>> you're a liberal democrat, then you just whine and use elected
>> officials, using the force of government, to reach into the pockets of
>> working folks to make up for their own incompetence and lack of
>> accomplishment.
>> As long folks continue to drink, smoke, choose their food poorly, sit on
>> their ample behinds, play with dangerous things, and do other stupid
>> things with their bodies, they have both the right as well as the
>> obligation for paying for their acquired maladies. As long as an
>> 'industrial-complex' composed of doctors, pharmacologists, and lawyers
>> continue to have sway in our lives, those services will always cost more
>> than they are worth.
>>
> I take it you have not had significant medical problems.
You take it correctly. Then again, I work at making sure that such is
the case. But, whether I do or don't, please remind me, what does that
have to do with 'who' should be paying for 'what' things?
nothermark
Feb 10, 2016, 6:02:16 PM2/10/16
to
could be considered fee for service. Grow food, feed us medicine.
Then consider the whole industry. The food business assumes we will
not stop eating. The medical business assumes that if we get too
healthy we do not need them. Different strokes for different layers
of the business.
It makes as much or more sense as the idea that for profit hospitals
are some how superior to not for profit one's. Then there are the
stories I have heard about the for profits doing minimal work then
transferring folks to the "charity hospitals" along with the
connotation that the care is somehow better if one pays stockholders.
One does not see that here. All reasons why I am just as happy not to
have one of the big for profit hospitals trying to compete here.
nothermark
Feb 10, 2016, 6:09:18 PM2/10/16
to
sometimes the treatment available. The Doctors are stuck with it. The
hospital administration is stuck with how to make the paperwork
collect the maximum for services rendered. At least where I go they
are all good at their respective jobs. That includes one visit from a
finance expert over an stay that I wondered whether would be covered
or not as I was technically under observation not admitted but had a
private room.
nothermark
Feb 10, 2016, 6:13:44 PM2/10/16
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 12:04:07 -0800, Dusty <Dus...@InnerLodge.com>
Despite your efforts chances are good that you will encounter medical
problems before you die. When you do you will most likely end up with
a different view after you have the experience and see the bill.
problems before you die. When you do you will most likely end up with
a different view after you have the experience and see the bill.
Vito
Feb 10, 2016, 6:31:53 PM2/10/16
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 18:02:13 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
My first thought was "Why not a not-for-profit farm." and the obvious
answer is "Who would put up the capital to buy the land, buildings and
machinery?". Then I remembered my wife's brother and his bride.
Worried about having an income stream for retirement they asked to
borrow $250,000 to create a horse boarding operation with 10 stalls
that would rent for $200/month/@ to gross $2000/mo if all stalls were
rented. They figured feed would take half of that leaving $1000/mo
income. Would you sign up to muck out 10 stalls a day 7 days a week,
plus feed and exercise the animals for $1000/mo? Neither would they.
They planned to hire a "Mexican" to do all that! And they expect this
to provide retirement income. Do you want to loan them the $250k or
would you rather invest in a non-profit hospital??
Or perhaps we could get the government to put up the money for a
non-profit hospital (or farm). Seems like Lenin tried that with
little success but ??? It might work in NY or Frisco.
answer is "Who would put up the capital to buy the land, buildings and
machinery?". Then I remembered my wife's brother and his bride.
Worried about having an income stream for retirement they asked to
borrow $250,000 to create a horse boarding operation with 10 stalls
that would rent for $200/month/@ to gross $2000/mo if all stalls were
rented. They figured feed would take half of that leaving $1000/mo
income. Would you sign up to muck out 10 stalls a day 7 days a week,
plus feed and exercise the animals for $1000/mo? Neither would they.
They planned to hire a "Mexican" to do all that! And they expect this
to provide retirement income. Do you want to loan them the $250k or
would you rather invest in a non-profit hospital??
Or perhaps we could get the government to put up the money for a
non-profit hospital (or farm). Seems like Lenin tried that with
little success but ??? It might work in NY or Frisco.
Dusty
Feb 10, 2016, 6:42:24 PM2/10/16
to
> Despite your efforts chances are good that you will encounter medical
> problems before you die.
I suspect that will be so. I'll do what I can to dodge the goblin, but
> problems before you die.
I'm fully aware that sometimes you get the bear...and sometimes the bear
gets you. At least that's how it goes for most folks.
> When you do you will most likely end up with
> a different view after you have the experience and see the bill.
I'm going to do everything in my power to not end up like that. I fully
understand that "sh*thappens", and my plan might go to heck. But until
then, it's still MY choice, and MY responsibility to take care of
things. Why is that so difficult for some reading here to grasp?
Lone Haranguer
Feb 10, 2016, 6:54:46 PM2/10/16
to
On 2/9/2016 10:53 AM, Vito wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 12:38:07 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
> On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 12:38:07 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:39:22 -0500, Vito <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:10:41 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm just trying to figure out why you want to run up our medical
>>>> bills. As some folks here keep telling me it all comes back to the
>>>> consumers.
>>>
>>> To level the playing field.
>>
>> In what way?
>
> Imagine yourself owning a normal for profit business - in this case a
> hospital. You make a profit and pay taxes. Competition with the
> hospital across town keeps prices in line. Enter Father Jones and his
> church's hospital. He suckers parishoners into doing much of the
> cleaning and scrubing at his place plus he pays no taxes so he can
> charge less for his services. Good thing? Sure - temporarily. Soon
> you and the dude across town are forced out of business and now
> Father Jones can, and does, charge anything he wants, justifying it
> because God needs the money. That's the history of hospitals in much
> of the country.
>
And many cities have lost their hospitals because the local citizens
>
>> On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:39:22 -0500, Vito <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:10:41 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm just trying to figure out why you want to run up our medical
>>>> bills. As some folks here keep telling me it all comes back to the
>>>> consumers.
>>>
>>> To level the playing field.
>>
>> In what way?
>
> Imagine yourself owning a normal for profit business - in this case a
> hospital. You make a profit and pay taxes. Competition with the
> hospital across town keeps prices in line. Enter Father Jones and his
> church's hospital. He suckers parishoners into doing much of the
> cleaning and scrubing at his place plus he pays no taxes so he can
> charge less for his services. Good thing? Sure - temporarily. Soon
> you and the dude across town are forced out of business and now
> Father Jones can, and does, charge anything he wants, justifying it
> because God needs the money. That's the history of hospitals in much
> of the country.
>
thought abortion was more important than health care.
Of course they blame the religious group and whine when they need an
emergency room that's less than 50 miles away.
I wish the hospital and doctors we had in MN in a city of 68,000 would
move down here. It's one of the top 100 in the country and I can't even
find a doctor in Tucson that's capable of services we took for granted.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Feb 10, 2016, 7:01:02 PM2/10/16
to
On 2/9/2016 11:09 AM, George Anthony wrote:
> Vito <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 12:38:07 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:39:22 -0500, Vito <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:10:41 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm just trying to figure out why you want to run up our medical
>>>>> bills. As some folks here keep telling me it all comes back to the
>>>>> consumers.
>>>>
>>>> To level the playing field.
>>>
>>> In what way?
>>
>> Imagine yourself owning a normal for profit business - in this case a
>> hospital. You make a profit and pay taxes. Competition with the
>> hospital across town keeps prices in line. Enter Father Jones and his
>> church's hospital. He suckers parishoners into doing much of the
>> cleaning and scrubing at his place plus he pays no taxes so he can
>> charge less for his services. Good thing? Sure - temporarily. Soon
>> you and the dude across town are forced out of business and now
>> Father Jones can, and does, charge anything he wants, justifying it
>> because God needs the money. That's the history of hospitals in much
>> of the country.
>>
>
> You are a bitter old man.
> Vito <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 12:38:07 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:39:22 -0500, Vito <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 01:10:41 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm just trying to figure out why you want to run up our medical
>>>>> bills. As some folks here keep telling me it all comes back to the
>>>>> consumers.
>>>>
>>>> To level the playing field.
>>>
>>> In what way?
>>
>> Imagine yourself owning a normal for profit business - in this case a
>> hospital. You make a profit and pay taxes. Competition with the
>> hospital across town keeps prices in line. Enter Father Jones and his
>> church's hospital. He suckers parishoners into doing much of the
>> cleaning and scrubing at his place plus he pays no taxes so he can
>> charge less for his services. Good thing? Sure - temporarily. Soon
>> you and the dude across town are forced out of business and now
>> Father Jones can, and does, charge anything he wants, justifying it
>> because God needs the money. That's the history of hospitals in much
>> of the country.
>>
>
>
And his description of hospitals run by religious orders is totally
different from what I have experienced.
In the MN city of 68,000 where we had our health care the hospital is
the largest employer in the city and vital to the city's economy.
Salaries are competitive and I know this because our youngest daughter
was the director of surgical services.
LZ
LZ
RMcBane
Feb 10, 2016, 10:52:14 PM2/10/16
to
medical management professionals all bets are off.
They are the folks who call the shots for length
of stay and often protocols used."
--
They are the folks who call the shots for length
of stay and often protocols used."
Richard McBane
nothermark
Feb 10, 2016, 11:08:35 PM2/10/16
to
Administrators. Both consider themselves health care professionals.
They have very different viewpoints. Both have a different viewpoint
than the Doctors on occasion,
Don't get me wrong, everybody in the mix has a valid concern. The
issue is that they are all different. If balanced properly they get
us out of the hospital sooner and healthier. If they mess up I am
back in the Emergency Room with opiate induced constipation. That was
a minor issue compared to some of what Vito can probably tell you. If
you want another example take a look at the argument over mamograms.
The point is that the protocols are based on average outcomes with an
acceptance of some repair work. That is why I am not too annoyed over
my escapade. OTOH I wish somebody would have jumped on my problem a
few days sooner. I will with the next one. It was cheaper for them
to boot me out a day earlier than might have been best for me knowing
that out of 100 people in my situation they would get 5 or 10 back but
that was more cost effective than giving us all the extra day. OTOH
20 years ago I might have spent several more days in bed and lose much
more muscle tone doing it. It's all balance and who is winning the
discussion.
nothermark
Feb 10, 2016, 11:13:21 PM2/10/16
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 15:42:22 -0800, Dusty <Dus...@InnerLodge.com>
Why is it so difficult to understand that medical insurance is really
a way to share costs for whoever is in the box this time. We all get
a turn. Many of us get a bill that exceeds what we paid in insurance
for our lifetime. Most of us try to take care of ourselves because
being sick is not fun. Granted, some are better than others at doing
it just like anything else.
a way to share costs for whoever is in the box this time. We all get
a turn. Many of us get a bill that exceeds what we paid in insurance
for our lifetime. Most of us try to take care of ourselves because
being sick is not fun. Granted, some are better than others at doing
it just like anything else.
nothermark
Feb 10, 2016, 11:18:17 PM2/10/16
to
common. Both need customers to buy their products so they can stay in
business. Neither have stockholders to satisfy. That is why your
analogy has a problem. It is also the crux of the issue. Why do we
need the extra 20% tacked on to satisfy stockholders that do nothing
to keep the business going.
RMcBane
Feb 10, 2016, 11:35:52 PM2/10/16
to
thread, it must have been a not-for-profit
hospital where your situation occurred. After all
you said that is the only kind you have in your
area.
And by your earlier reasoning, a for profit
hospital would have kept you in as long as they
could to maximize their billings and profits.
Thus they would have convinced the insurance
company that the extra day was necessary so that
they could bill insurance for extra procedures,
and bill you for additional co-pay.
It sound to me that your beef is with
not-for-profits that kick out patients without
fighting with the insurance company to gain the
extra revenue.
--
Richard McBane
RMcBane
Feb 10, 2016, 11:44:12 PM2/10/16
to
that come from. Is it actually a margin number or
return on investment, or a number you made up for
discussion?
--
Richard McBane
Major Oz
Feb 10, 2016, 11:45:53 PM2/10/16
to
On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 10:18:17 PM UTC-6, nothermark wrote:
> Why do we
> need the extra 20% tacked on to satisfy stockholders that do nothing
> to keep the business going.
It's their reward for GETTING the business going.
> Why do we
> need the extra 20% tacked on to satisfy stockholders that do nothing
> to keep the business going.
RMcBane
Feb 10, 2016, 11:50:01 PM2/10/16
to
family is the owner of the farm. The farm may be
owned as a sole proprietorship or it might be
incorporated in the names of various family
members. But if you think that a family farm
isn't in business to satisfy the owners or the
farm, then your understanding of business is even
poorer that I thought.
--
Richard McBane
Jerry...@invalid.net
Feb 11, 2016, 1:42:36 AM2/11/16
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:18:04 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
> Why do we
>need the extra 20% tacked on to satisfy stockholders that do nothing
>to keep the business going.
Perhaps because they own the business and expect a good ROI. Else they will
> Why do we
>need the extra 20% tacked on to satisfy stockholders that do nothing
>to keep the business going.
move their money to where there is a good ROI.
Dusty
Feb 11, 2016, 9:25:08 AM2/11/16
to
knowledge that I don't understand insurance and how it works?
> We all get
> a turn.
think about. So many are using those tools to extend their health and
avoid those kinds of 'boxes' for themselves.
> Many of us get a bill that exceeds what we paid in insurance
> for our lifetime.
> Most of us try to take care of ourselves because
> being sick is not fun.
themselves at all. Most due to being ignorant of how things work or too
lazy to do what is right (well I should know that one!), and the rest
because, as I said previously, "sh*t happens". Then there's always your
genetic roulette to consider; as well as health care providers with a
singular eye on only their bottom line.
> Granted, some are better than others at doing
> it just like anything else.
nothermark
Feb 11, 2016, 10:07:38 AM2/11/16
to
>
>And by your earlier reasoning, a for profit
>hospital would have kept you in as long as they
>could to maximize their billings and profits.
>Thus they would have convinced the insurance
>company that the extra day was necessary so that
>they could bill insurance for extra procedures,
>and bill you for additional co-pay.
money out of the insurance company.
>
>It sound to me that your beef is with
>not-for-profits that kick out patients without
>fighting with the insurance company to gain the
>extra revenue.
For profit and not for profit have the same issues with the insurance
companies calling the shots over what they will pay for. My only beef
with for profits is the cut they add over what a not for profit would
want for the same service. The for profits have a couple of extra
costs in both taxes and the shareholder returns. Setting payments to
cover that runs up insurance costs.
My original question was why Vito wanted to remove the tax exemption
from not for profit hospitals to even the playing field with for
profit hospitals. I asked why he wanted to run up medical care costs.
I understand the way mixes of for profit and not for profit hospitals
work in an area. Anybody who cannot fork out the cash for the
difference in cost gets stabilized and shipped over to the charity
hospital that in turn gets burdened by treating folks with low means
to pay for their care. I find that reprehensible. It should be the
best care not stabilization. The only way to get that is to have a
single system where there is no reason to patient shift.
nothermark
Feb 11, 2016, 10:09:07 AM2/11/16
to
to cover shareholders in the discussions over health care costs.
Lone Haranguer
Feb 11, 2016, 10:59:20 AM2/11/16
to
On 2/9/2016 2:37 PM, Vito wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 12:28:09 -0700, Lone Haranguer <linu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> My reading skills are well documented. In the 2nd grade I was tested
>> for reading and vocabulary on a state test and had the reading and
>> vocabulary skills of a 6th grader. In 6th grade I was tested again and
>> had the reading and vocabulary skills of a high school graduate.
>
> There is reading and then there is comprehending, two different
> things.
>>
>>
>> Why isn't Planned Parenthood following suit? You're a diehard supporter
>> of their activities, why don't you start harassing them about
>> their fat cash surplus.
>
> For the very same reasons that you ignore the lavish life of the Pope.
> I have better things on my bucket list. If you could comprehend what
> I said you'd see that I advocated PP, and churches, and, and, ...
> being taxed on profits
>>
>> Obviously their lobbying activities is why they are still getting
>> taxpayer money to pay their chief executive nearly $600,000 a year.
>>
>> LZ
> That is the American way. Invest $1 million in bribes and get $100
> million back. I'm not saying it is right but it is so embeded that
> neither you nor I can change it. At least Planned Parenthood does
> good with some of the money.
>
And hospitals managed by religious organizations don't?
How about other non-profits like St. Jude's? Not operated by any
religious group but also considered a "charity" hospital.
Did other hospitals in Memphis go belly up when St. Jude's opened?
LZ
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 12:28:09 -0700, Lone Haranguer <linu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> My reading skills are well documented. In the 2nd grade I was tested
>> for reading and vocabulary on a state test and had the reading and
>> vocabulary skills of a 6th grader. In 6th grade I was tested again and
>> had the reading and vocabulary skills of a high school graduate.
>
> There is reading and then there is comprehending, two different
> things.
>>
>>
>> Why isn't Planned Parenthood following suit? You're a diehard supporter
>> of their activities, why don't you start harassing them about
>> their fat cash surplus.
>
> For the very same reasons that you ignore the lavish life of the Pope.
> I have better things on my bucket list. If you could comprehend what
> I said you'd see that I advocated PP, and churches, and, and, ...
> being taxed on profits
>>
>> Obviously their lobbying activities is why they are still getting
>> taxpayer money to pay their chief executive nearly $600,000 a year.
>>
>> LZ
> That is the American way. Invest $1 million in bribes and get $100
> million back. I'm not saying it is right but it is so embeded that
> neither you nor I can change it. At least Planned Parenthood does
> good with some of the money.
>
And hospitals managed by religious organizations don't?
How about other non-profits like St. Jude's? Not operated by any
religious group but also considered a "charity" hospital.
Did other hospitals in Memphis go belly up when St. Jude's opened?
LZ
Technobarbarian
Feb 11, 2016, 11:00:12 AM2/11/16
to
"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message
news:9m6pbbd1vup6e9fda...@4ax.com...
> For profit and not for profit have the same issues with the insurance
> companies calling the shots over what they will pay for. My only beef
> with for profits is the cut they add over what a not for profit would
> want for the same service. The for profits have a couple of extra
> costs in both taxes and the shareholder returns. Setting payments to
> cover that runs up insurance costs.
discussing economics with Nattering Mark. I'm just tossing out this little
grenade strictly for amusement.
http://www.arbiternews.com/2014/04/08/why-nonprofits-are-the-most-profitable-hospitals-in-the-us/
WASHINGTON, April 8, 2014-Almost two thirds of hospitals in the U.S. are
nonprofit institutions. Given the significant tax breaks that come with
nonprofit status, in the healthcare context, nonprofit translates to massive
profits. Critics argue that coupled with the low level of charity some
nonprofits provide, in most cases tax breaks are unjustifiable and
unsustainable.
Of the country's thousands of hospitals, 23 percent are owned by governments
(state and local), 18 percent are for-profit and the rest are nonprofit,
according to the American Hospital Association (AHA).
Most people understand nonprofit hospitals as charity organizations that
provide free or discounted services for those who cannot afford to pay, and
as such, perform a necessary and valuable community service. However, in
reality U.S. nonprofit hospitals are extremely lucrative. At the same time,
many fail to provide the valuable services for which they get preferential
tax treatment.
The profitable nonprofit
In the U.S. healthcare industry, being nonprofit is more lucrative than
being for-profit.
"The 2,900 nonprofit hospitals across the country, which are exempt from
income taxes, actually end up averaging higher operating profit margins than
the 1,000 for-profit hospitals after the for-profit's income-tax obligations
are deducted," writes Steven Brill in his pioneering health exposé in Time
Magazine. "In health care, being nonprofit produces more profit."
To qualify as a nonprofit, hospitals must follow a number of rules including
having a written policy delineating how patients "in need of financial
assistance" will be treated, as well as a written policy explaining how
charges to patients are calculated. Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA),
hospitals will have to conduct a community needs assessment every three
years and develop strategies for meeting identified needs.
Nonprofit does not mean that the facility does not make any profits;
instead, it means that profits are reinvested in the hospital in the form of
new facilities and equipment, massive salaries and bonuses for nonmedical
administrators, expanding staff, offering more services and buying out
competing hostpitals and health systems.
There are currently no regulatory limits on hospital profits, including
nonprofits.
Considering nonprofit hospitals are exempt from local and state property
taxes as well as income and sales taxes, profits can be considerable. Add to
that the fact that nonprofits may also issue tax-exempt bonds, and nonprofit
hospitals are huge moneymakers.
The requirement that nonprofits reinvest in facilities and expand services
gives rise to huge hospital systems that virtually dominate host cities and
become the area's largest employer, with some hospitals bringing in more
revenue than what the host city collects in taxes and fees.
Another way for nonprofits to spend their profits is compensation, with top
administrator salaries in the millions of dollars. For example, in 2010 the
combined compensation of the top executives at the 25 most profitable
non-profit hospitals in the country totaled $59 million, according to Becker's
Hospital Review. The reported 2011 compensation for Jeffrey Romoff, head of
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Presbyterian (the highest-grossing
nonprofit in the country) was $5.97 million.
The high wages do not stop at top-level administrators. A study by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics found that, on average, hourly workers get higher
wages in nonprofit hospitals than in for-profit ones.
"Payment of excessive compensation to executives, managers, and
administrators undermines the purposes of nonprofit corporations because it
results in fewer funds being available for their charitable purposes,"
concluded a 2013 study by the office of the attorney general in Sacramento,
California. "It is often the case that the hospitals, hospital groups, and
affiliated medical entities that pay the most excessive compensation also
provide less charitable care than comparable institutions that pay
reasonable compensation to their executives, managers, and administrators."
[snip]
Vito
Feb 11, 2016, 11:50:58 AM2/11/16
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:18:04 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
wrote:
wrote:
>Actually a not for profit hospital and a family farm have a lot in
>common. Both need customers to buy their products so they can stay in
>business. Neither have stockholders to satisfy. That is why your
>analogy has a problem. It is also the crux of the issue. Why do we
>need the extra 20% tacked on to satisfy stockholders that do nothing
>to keep the business going.
The family farm, as popularly envisioned, is a myth. It disapeared
>common. Both need customers to buy their products so they can stay in
>business. Neither have stockholders to satisfy. That is why your
>analogy has a problem. It is also the crux of the issue. Why do we
>need the extra 20% tacked on to satisfy stockholders that do nothing
>to keep the business going.
over a generation ago, another victim of mechanization. Today, the
inheritor of one hires a custom cropper to plant and harvest his crop
because a farm his size cannot afford the machinery. And he has sold
said crop before it is planted. When he dies his heirs will sell to a
conglomerate, which makes no real difference because he belonged to a
co-op that served the same purpose. The conglomerate has stock
holders to satisfy.
Linus will be surprised to learn that his beloved church is making a
20% profit off its hospitals.
Vito
Feb 11, 2016, 12:04:48 PM2/11/16
to
these 'nonprofits' CEOs get? Do they charge significantly (say 50%)
less than the private hospitals? Goes the Pope or Pat Robertson live
in poverty? Pot! Kettle!
Bruce
Feb 11, 2016, 1:19:32 PM2/11/16
to
care turned over to the free market. At least that way, good business
practices will keep prices down.
--
Bruce
"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from it's
government." -- Thomas Paine
Bruce
Feb 11, 2016, 1:20:19 PM2/11/16
to
nothermark
Feb 11, 2016, 1:37:44 PM2/11/16
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:45:51 -0800 (PST), Major Oz <ozm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Pretty good deal. Put in a few bucks and get a perpetual return for
doing nothing. ;-)
wrote:
doing nothing. ;-)
nothermark
Feb 11, 2016, 1:56:27 PM2/11/16
to
farm and the not for profit need to provide a living for the folks
working there. The corporation does to but also has to provide
another chunk of profit for the shareholders.
FWIW That is also why the small family held corporations seem to do
better in many ways than the big corporations where the stockholders
have little or nothing to do with the business. At least that is
what I keep hearing.
nothermark
Feb 11, 2016, 2:02:04 PM2/11/16
to
in maximizing their investment return. The money moves to whoever
promises the best return. Ask Bernie Madoff. ;-)
Jerry...@invalid.net
Feb 11, 2016, 2:08:19 PM2/11/16
to
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 13:37:40 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>
>Pretty good deal. Put in a few bucks and get a perpetual return for
>doing nothing. ;-)
Kinda like a savings account or a bond except one is taking a risk with the
>
>Pretty good deal. Put in a few bucks and get a perpetual return for
>doing nothing. ;-)
money so the reward needs to be commensurate with the risk.
For me to risk MY money I wanted to be confident that I would do a lot better
than savings or bonds. Although, compounding on a savings acct. does help - and
there is minimal risk for the faint of heart.
The real trick in making money seems to be investing in the Physical Plant and
hiring competent, qualified people with a very good work ethic to make the money
for you. You pay them a reasonable share of their earnings and pocket the rest.
It is a little more complicated than that, but hopefully you will get the
picture.
Jerry O.
Vito
Feb 11, 2016, 2:12:51 PM2/11/16
to
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 13:37:40 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
wrote:
wrote:
>Pretty good deal. Put in a few bucks and get a perpetual return for
>doing nothing. ;-)
That is what we call "Capitalism". It recognizes the fact that people
>doing nothing. ;-)
are basically self centered and selfish. The alternative believes man
can be remade to suit the "From each according to his ability; to each
according to his needs." credo. Capitalism, for all its abuses has
given us weallth. Communism is a failure. For example, most black
Americans' ancestors came here as slaves yet it would be hard to find
a black American who isn't far better off than those in Africa. OTOH
Russia was once a wealthy nation. Now they are cllawing their way
back.
Government owned hospitals are simply communisim in miniture.
RMcBane
Feb 11, 2016, 2:16:57 PM2/11/16
to
capital. Doesn't matter if it is personal wealth
of the business owner (farmer) or from
stockholder. It is the invested capital that
allows the business to exist.
--
Richard McBane
Vito
Feb 11, 2016, 2:23:08 PM2/11/16
to
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 13:56:25 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
wrote:
say, $10 million that yeilded a basic living - food, shelter, a new
car every 4 years - provided you work very hard, would you keep it or
sell out and invest the $ in an annuity that paid you $80-100,000/year
for doing nothing.
wrote:
>
>Not to fear. I understand the issue. My point is that the family
>farm and the not for profit need to provide a living for the folks
>working there. The corporation does to but also has to provide
>another chunk of profit for the shareholders.
I don't think you do understand. If you had inherited a farm worth,
>Not to fear. I understand the issue. My point is that the family
>farm and the not for profit need to provide a living for the folks
>working there. The corporation does to but also has to provide
>another chunk of profit for the shareholders.
say, $10 million that yeilded a basic living - food, shelter, a new
car every 4 years - provided you work very hard, would you keep it or
sell out and invest the $ in an annuity that paid you $80-100,000/year
for doing nothing.
Jerry...@invalid.net
Feb 11, 2016, 2:27:34 PM2/11/16
to
You seem to be implying that you do/did not manage your money and investments
for the best return.
This from a guy who whines about "Off-Shoring" jobs but then stated that he
bought used shirts made offshore at second hand stores. I suggested that there
must be several good tailors in Rochester and you said, "Too expensive".
RMcBane
Feb 11, 2016, 2:38:21 PM2/11/16
to
insurance company, 2015 not available yet. Over a
5 year period, earning ranged from 5% to 8.5% of
revenues. The earnings per share grew over the
period from $4.10 to $5.70 however cash
dividends declared were only $0.405 growing to
$1.405. Obviously a considerable amount was kept
in retained earnings for future growth of the
business.
This is pretty far off your 20% number.
The company also reported a return on equity of
18% which is closer to your 20% number. But
return on equity isn't money that they are using
to cover stockholders.
You may get different results if you check out
some other company.
--
Richard McBane
Technobarbarian
Feb 11, 2016, 3:04:07 PM2/11/16
to
"RMcBane" <rmc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:56bcddfe$0$29558$c3e8da3$c8b7...@news.astraweb.com...
> In any business the key is return on invested capital. Doesn't matter if
> it is personal wealth of the business owner (farmer) or from stockholder.
> It is the invested capital that allows the business to exist.
point. For the most part this discussion is about very real costs that
someone has to pay. If a hospital doesn't pay taxes someone else picks up
those very real expenses. NM apparently favors moving some expenses to
taxpayers. This doesn't reduce the cost of health care it just moves the
expense around. The one place NM might be able to reduce the actual costs,
instead of just moving them around, is by reducing the cost of capital. This
could be done by using public funding to finance hospitals instead of
private financing.
Airports and stadiums come to mind as other places where we do this.
Please note: I am not suggesting that the government should actually run
hospitals.
Hank
Feb 11, 2016, 3:40:53 PM2/11/16
to
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 10:59:20 AM UTC-5, Lone Haranguer wrote:
> And hospitals managed by religious organizations don't?
>
> How about other non-profits like St. Jude's? Not operated by any
> religious group but also considered a "charity" hospital.
>
> Did other hospitals in Memphis go belly up when St. Jude's opened?
>
> LZ
Now that everybody has to have insurance, why is there ANY non-profit hospitals? Altho St. Jude's WILL bill the insurance companies more than the maximum they'll pay and absorb the balance if the people can't pay. Maybe that way they'll remain a "charity hospital".
> And hospitals managed by religious organizations don't?
>
> How about other non-profits like St. Jude's? Not operated by any
> religious group but also considered a "charity" hospital.
>
> Did other hospitals in Memphis go belly up when St. Jude's opened?
>
> LZ
Hank
Frank Howell
Feb 11, 2016, 5:39:31 PM2/11/16
to
controversy using public money to build sport stadiums for private sport
teams.
--
Frank Howell
Frank Howell
Feb 11, 2016, 5:44:22 PM2/11/16
to
report they would not invest in a business that gave nothing in return
and without the stockholders capital the business might not exist.
I mean what other reason exists for stockholders to hold stock?
--
Frank Howell
Frank Howell
Feb 11, 2016, 5:56:25 PM2/11/16
to
the business because that's the only way they can evaluate the companies
profit potential.
In Bernie's case his clients had the exact opposite investment
philosophy, they could care less in what Bernie invested in, it was all
about greed based on word-of-mouth experiences, not true economic data.
--
Frank Howell
Frank Howell
Feb 11, 2016, 6:11:47 PM2/11/16
to
Ka-ching!
Nonprofits were made for the gullibles.
--
Frank Howell
Frank Howell
Feb 11, 2016, 6:12:35 PM2/11/16
to
Major Oz wrote:
> Then there is that disgusting snake oil palace, employing pseudo-medicine to suck the very last penny from desperate people: Cancer Treatment Centers of Hell.
>
Steve McQueen knew 'em all.
--
Frank Howell
>
Steve McQueen knew 'em all.
--
Frank Howell
Lone Haranguer
Feb 11, 2016, 6:43:31 PM2/11/16
to
On 2/11/2016 9:50 AM, Vito wrote:
> The family farm, as popularly envisioned, is a myth. It disapeared
> over a generation ago, another victim of mechanization. Today, the
> inheritor of one hires a custom cropper to plant and harvest his crop
> because a farm his size cannot afford the machinery. And he has sold
> said crop before it is planted. When he dies his heirs will sell to a
> conglomerate, which makes no real difference because he belonged to a
> co-op that served the same purpose. The conglomerate has stock
> holders to satisfy.
existing in MN, many having a sign indicating they have been in the same
family for over 100 years.
Southwestern MN has many corporate farms but most everything north and
west of I-94 is wooded and hilly with poorer soil.
New Machinery (most of it invented by the Germans for their tiny farms)
allows a small farmer to survive. Some may have part-time jobs but they
would never sell their beloved farms.
My neighbor (when I lived on the farm) was the 3rd generation to farm
the land and now the 4th generation has taken over. His farm is
bordered by other farms which were settled by his relatives back in the
1860s.
The reason they settled in that spot was for the timber. His
great-grandfather homesteaded the land with the intention of making a
living selling firewood. Now the suitable land supports a dairy
operation but much of it is still wooded.
You really do need to get out more.
I'm sorry if I don't keep up trading insults. Our oldest daughter and
her husband are visiting this week and next and 2 days after they leave
we're getting more visitors.
Our weather forecast is making them happy.
LZ
Technobarbarian
Feb 11, 2016, 6:56:46 PM2/11/16
to
"Frank Howell" <fpho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:56bd0da2$0$62623$c3e8da3$dbd...@news.astraweb.com...
> Technobarbarian wrote:
>>
>>
>> "RMcBane" <rmc...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:56bcddfe$0$29558$c3e8da3$c8b7...@news.astraweb.com...
>>
>>> In any business the key is return on invested capital. Doesn't matter
>>> if it is personal wealth of the business owner (farmer) or from
>>> stockholder. It is the invested capital that allows the business to
>>> exist.
>>
>> I think you're sort of talking around the one place NM might have
>> a point. For the most part this discussion is about very real costs that
>> someone has to pay. If a hospital doesn't pay taxes someone else picks
>> up those very real expenses. NM apparently favors moving some expenses
>> to taxpayers. This doesn't reduce the cost of health care it just moves
>> the expense around. The one place NM might be able to reduce the actual
>> costs, instead of just moving them around, is by reducing the cost of
>> capital. This could be done by using public funding to finance hospitals
>> instead of private financing.
>>
>> Airports and stadiums come to mind as other places where we do
>> this. Please note: I am not suggesting that the government should
>> actually run hospitals.
>
> Why is public funding cheaper?
Next you'll be asking why the sky is blue.
>>
>>
>> "RMcBane" <rmc...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:56bcddfe$0$29558$c3e8da3$c8b7...@news.astraweb.com...
>>
>>> In any business the key is return on invested capital. Doesn't matter
>>> if it is personal wealth of the business owner (farmer) or from
>>> stockholder. It is the invested capital that allows the business to
>>> exist.
>>
>> I think you're sort of talking around the one place NM might have
>> a point. For the most part this discussion is about very real costs that
>> someone has to pay. If a hospital doesn't pay taxes someone else picks
>> up those very real expenses. NM apparently favors moving some expenses
>> to taxpayers. This doesn't reduce the cost of health care it just moves
>> the expense around. The one place NM might be able to reduce the actual
>> costs, instead of just moving them around, is by reducing the cost of
>> capital. This could be done by using public funding to finance hospitals
>> instead of private financing.
>>
>> Airports and stadiums come to mind as other places where we do
>> this. Please note: I am not suggesting that the government should
>> actually run hospitals.
>
> Why is public funding cheaper?
https://www.google.com/#safe=off&q=bond+rate+private+versus+public
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr553.pdf
This paper presents preliminary findings and is being distributed to
economists
and other interested readers solely to stimulate discussion and elicit
comments.
The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and are not
necessarily
reflective of views at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal
Reserve System. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the
authors
.
Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Staff Reports
The Private Premium in Public Bonds
Anna Kovner
Chenyang Wei
Revised March 2014
The Private Premium in Public Bonds
Anna Kovner and Chenyang Wei
Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports
Abstract
This paper is the first to document the presence of a private premium in
public bonds. We find that spreads are 30 basis points higher for public
bonds of private companies than for bonds of public companies, even after
controlling for observable differences, including rating, financial
performance, industry, bond characteristics, and issuance timing. The
estimated private premium increases to 40-56 basis points when a propensity
matching methodology is used or when we control for fixed issuer effects. In
contrast, in the same sample, there is no difference in pricing in private
debt (syndicated loans). Despite the premium pricing, bonds of private
companies are no more
likely to decline in price, to default, or to be downgraded than are public
bonds. We conclude that the costs of information may be different across
segments of the debt market.
http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2012/05/the-private-premium-in-public-bonds.html
I'm not an economist. Could it be that public financing is cheaper
because the public doesn't need to make a profit? In theory wouldn't they be
doing it for the public good?
As far as stadiums go, there's lots of
> controversy using public money to build sport stadiums for private sport
> teams.
discussion. I suspect that hospitals could make a clearer case for
benefitting everyone in the communities where they're located.
Lone Haranguer
Feb 11, 2016, 7:59:21 PM2/11/16
to
NEVER sent a bill.
LZ
Major Oz
Feb 11, 2016, 9:59:22 PM2/11/16
to
...addendum: every(SMART)one can do it.
Major Oz
Feb 11, 2016, 10:08:10 PM2/11/16
to
I hear, however, that tax income form such stadia more than justify the cost.
Dunno, though, about opportunity costs and all the other shit that a really in-depth investigation might reveal.
Bruce
Feb 11, 2016, 11:12:14 PM2/11/16
to
Jerry...@invalid.net
Feb 12, 2016, 12:15:51 AM2/12/16
to
>farm, then your understanding of business is even
>poorer that I thought.
Richard, you are an optimist if you ever thought that he had even an inkling
>poorer that I thought.
about how business works.
RMcBane
Feb 12, 2016, 12:29:44 AM2/12/16
to
rates of publicly traded companies versus those of
privately held companies.
Example, not sure if it is still true, but in the
80s American Greeting was a publicly traded
company, you could buy stock in it on what ever
exchange traded their shares. Hallmark was a
privately held company, you could not buy their
stock unless you happened to know one the owners
of the company that agreed to sell you a portion
of his shares in the company.
The article has nothing to do with the rates on
bonds such as Municipal bonds or bonds issued by
quasi government agencies.
--
Richard McBane
nothermark
Feb 12, 2016, 7:05:58 AM2/12/16
to
http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20150425/MAGAZINE/304259980
"Community Health Systems' Wayne Smith took the top spot among CEOs of
provider companies, with total compensation of $26.4 million. "
http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/compensation-issues/26-statistics-on-for-profit-hospital-system-ceo-compensation-in-2013.html
http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/compensation-issues/78-statistics-on-for-profit-hospital-operator-executive-compensation-2013.html
While I think they may be a bit overpaid at $2 mil the not for profit
folks are pikers compared to their for profit competition. OTOH as
was pointed out the worker bees make out better in a not for profit so
we know where at least part of the for profit CEO salaries come from.
nothermark
Feb 12, 2016, 7:14:23 AM2/12/16
to
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 11:50:19 -0500, Vito <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:18:04 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:18:04 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>wrote:
>>Actually a not for profit hospital and a family farm have a lot in
>>common. Both need customers to buy their products so they can stay in
>>business. Neither have stockholders to satisfy. That is why your
>>analogy has a problem. It is also the crux of the issue. Why do we
>>common. Both need customers to buy their products so they can stay in
>>business. Neither have stockholders to satisfy. That is why your
>>need the extra 20% tacked on to satisfy stockholders that do nothing
>>to keep the business going.
>
>>to keep the business going.
>
>The family farm, as popularly envisioned, is a myth. It disapeared
>over a generation ago, another victim of mechanization. Today, the
>inheritor of one hires a custom cropper to plant and harvest his crop
>because a farm his size cannot afford the machinery. And he has sold
>said crop before it is planted. When he dies his heirs will sell to a
>conglomerate, which makes no real difference because he belonged to a
>co-op that served the same purpose. The conglomerate has stock
>holders to satisfy.
>
>Linus will be surprised to learn that his beloved church is making a
>over a generation ago, another victim of mechanization. Today, the
>inheritor of one hires a custom cropper to plant and harvest his crop
>because a farm his size cannot afford the machinery. And he has sold
>said crop before it is planted. When he dies his heirs will sell to a
>conglomerate, which makes no real difference because he belonged to a
>co-op that served the same purpose. The conglomerate has stock
>holders to satisfy.
>
>20% profit off its hospitals.
Maybe where you live. Where I have property in farm country even most
of the corporate farms are really family farms. The difference is
that a busy farmer now uses 2000 acres instead of 75 with horses or
300 with a small gas tractor. It put a lot of farmers off their land
but we are still talking a farmer and his family with modern
equipment. The last I knew that included doing most of their own
harvesting and often storing various grains on site watching for the
optimum selling price.
nothermark
Feb 12, 2016, 7:17:15 AM2/12/16
to
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 10:20:01 -0800, Bruce <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Sounds like the whole "Non-Profit" cam should be eliminated and health
>care turned over to the free market. At least that way, good business
>practices will keep prices down.
Yeah, go public and the CEO goes from $2.6 mil to $26 mil but they cut
the workers pay and benefits. I'll stick with not for profits.
wrote:
>care turned over to the free market. At least that way, good business
>practices will keep prices down.
Yeah, go public and the CEO goes from $2.6 mil to $26 mil but they cut
the workers pay and benefits. I'll stick with not for profits.
nothermark
Feb 12, 2016, 7:19:02 AM2/12/16
to
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 10:20:49 -0800, Bruce <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 2/11/2016 7:09 AM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:43:50 -0500, RMcBane <rmc...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/10/2016 11:18 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 18:31:15 -0500, Vito <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 18:02:13 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
Not even close. Do your own looking at what margin the Insurance
companies wanted over operating costs to cover the shareholders. It
should be on line as it was recent enough.
wrote:
>On 2/11/2016 7:09 AM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:43:50 -0500, RMcBane <rmc...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/10/2016 11:18 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 18:31:15 -0500, Vito <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 18:02:13 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:32:07 -0500, Vito <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:08:14 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:32:07 -0500, Vito <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:08:14 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:55:47 -0500, Vito <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 06:49:24 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:55:47 -0500, Vito <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 06:49:24 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>>> Actually a not for profit hospital and a family farm have a lot in
>>>> common. Both need customers to buy their products so they can stay in
>>>> business. Neither have stockholders to satisfy. That is why your
>>>> analogy has a problem. It is also the crux of the issue. Why do we
>>>> need the extra 20% tacked on to satisfy stockholders that do nothing
>>>> to keep the business going.
>>>
>>>> common. Both need customers to buy their products so they can stay in
>>>> business. Neither have stockholders to satisfy. That is why your
>>>> analogy has a problem. It is also the crux of the issue. Why do we
>>>> need the extra 20% tacked on to satisfy stockholders that do nothing
>>>> to keep the business going.
>>>
>>> You keep throwing out this 20% number. Where does
>>> that come from. Is it actually a margin number or
>>> return on investment, or a number you made up for
>>> discussion?
>>
>> As I recall it is the number the insurance industry tossed in the mix
>> to cover shareholders in the discussions over health care costs.
>
>In other words, it's something you pulled out of thin air.
>>> that come from. Is it actually a margin number or
>>> return on investment, or a number you made up for
>>> discussion?
>>
>> As I recall it is the number the insurance industry tossed in the mix
>> to cover shareholders in the discussions over health care costs.
>
Not even close. Do your own looking at what margin the Insurance
companies wanted over operating costs to cover the shareholders. It
should be on line as it was recent enough.
nothermark
Feb 12, 2016, 7:27:06 AM2/12/16
to
not a big deal. What bugs me are the trends in the large publicly
traded companies. Top management is way over compensated while the
workers are systematically looted if they get to keep working.
nothermark
Feb 12, 2016, 7:36:59 AM2/12/16
to
may be cash or sweat equity or a combination. The problem with large
corporations is that it is almost all cash that is only interested in
maximizing returns whether or not the company continues to survive.
The farmer and the closely held corporation usually depends on the
business having a future to keep supporting the owners.
nothermark
Feb 12, 2016, 7:40:29 AM2/12/16
to
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 13:21:13 -0600, Jerry...@invalid.net wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:02:02 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 00:41:26 -0600, Jerry...@invalid.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:18:04 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why do we
>>>>need the extra 20% tacked on to satisfy stockholders that do nothing
>>>>to keep the business going.
>>>
>>>Perhaps because they own the business and expect a good ROI. Else they will
>>>move their money to where there is a good ROI.
>>
>>Precisely. They have no interest in the business. Their interest is
>>in maximizing their investment return. The money moves to whoever
>>promises the best return. Ask Bernie Madoff. ;-)
>
>You say that like you think it is a bad thing.
>
>You seem to be implying that you do/did not manage your money and investments
>for the best return.
The point is the most return this year or a decent stable return for
>On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:02:02 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 00:41:26 -0600, Jerry...@invalid.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:18:04 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why do we
>>>>need the extra 20% tacked on to satisfy stockholders that do nothing
>>>>to keep the business going.
>>>
>>>Perhaps because they own the business and expect a good ROI. Else they will
>>>move their money to where there is a good ROI.
>>
>>Precisely. They have no interest in the business. Their interest is
>>in maximizing their investment return. The money moves to whoever
>>promises the best return. Ask Bernie Madoff. ;-)
>
>You say that like you think it is a bad thing.
>
>You seem to be implying that you do/did not manage your money and investments
>for the best return.
the next 10 years. (10 is arbitrary) I would rather see a stable
long term investment than make a quick buck killing the source. YMMV.
>
>This from a guy who whines about "Off-Shoring" jobs but then stated that he
>bought used shirts made offshore at second hand stores. I suggested that there
>must be several good tailors in Rochester and you said, "Too expensive".
nothermark
Feb 12, 2016, 8:03:44 AM2/12/16
to
it on and some will sell it and feed their generation off the
proceeds. Their choice.
nothermark
Feb 12, 2016, 8:28:15 AM2/12/16
to
the wrong search terms. I did find this which starts to point out the
issue:
https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Files/Downloads/mlr-report-02-15-2013.pdf
Check item 2 of this:
http://pnhp.org/blog/2015/04/08/why-the-private-health-insurance-industry-has-to-go/
Actually the article explains a lot of things. Yes, it's a blog but
it is annotated if you want to follow the sources. As I recall the
20% came out of discussions of how much more a for profit needed over
the operating margin of a not for profit or somebody like Medicare
that I think is running on around 7% of the gross. The reason given
was stock holders but any analysis shows that a lot was skimmed by the
upper management. Any way you slice it there is a lot more overhead
in the for profit than in the not for profit side of the health care
business.
FWIW one of the things that did surprise me from tech's article was
the low fraction of for profit hospitals. As I recall they are less
than 30% of the hospital market.
nothermark
Feb 12, 2016, 8:30:30 AM2/12/16
to
do.
JerryOsage
Feb 12, 2016, 8:35:05 AM2/12/16
to
On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 07:40:27 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 13:21:13 -0600, Jerry...@invalid.net wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:02:02 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 00:41:26 -0600, Jerry...@invalid.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:18:04 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why do we
>>>>>need the extra 20% tacked on to satisfy stockholders that do nothing
>>>>>to keep the business going.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps because they own the business and expect a good ROI. Else they will
>>>>move their money to where there is a good ROI.
>>>
>>>Precisely. They have no interest in the business. Their interest is
>>>in maximizing their investment return. The money moves to whoever
>>>promises the best return. Ask Bernie Madoff. ;-)
>>
>>You say that like you think it is a bad thing.
>>
>>You seem to be implying that you do/did not manage your money and investments
>>for the best return.
>
>The point is the most return this year or a decent stable return for
>the next 10 years. (10 is arbitrary) I would rather see a stable
>long term investment than make a quick buck killing the source. YMMV.
>
If that was your point - why didn't you make it? Is 20% too much even if it is
>On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 13:21:13 -0600, Jerry...@invalid.net wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:02:02 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 00:41:26 -0600, Jerry...@invalid.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:18:04 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why do we
>>>>>need the extra 20% tacked on to satisfy stockholders that do nothing
>>>>>to keep the business going.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps because they own the business and expect a good ROI. Else they will
>>>>move their money to where there is a good ROI.
>>>
>>>Precisely. They have no interest in the business. Their interest is
>>>in maximizing their investment return. The money moves to whoever
>>>promises the best return. Ask Bernie Madoff. ;-)
>>
>>You say that like you think it is a bad thing.
>>
>>You seem to be implying that you do/did not manage your money and investments
>>for the best return.
>
>The point is the most return this year or a decent stable return for
>the next 10 years. (10 is arbitrary) I would rather see a stable
>long term investment than make a quick buck killing the source. YMMV.
>
stable year to year? Would you turn down a 20% ROI in favor of a 7% one?
>>
>>This from a guy who whines about "Off-Shoring" jobs but then stated that he
>>bought used shirts made offshore at second hand stores. I suggested that there
>>must be several good tailors in Rochester and you said, "Too expensive".
>
>Never could understand why I wanted a custom made shirt. ;-)
Probably price point . Buying "Off-Shored" products is OK as long as it saves
>>This from a guy who whines about "Off-Shoring" jobs but then stated that he
>>bought used shirts made offshore at second hand stores. I suggested that there
>>must be several good tailors in Rochester and you said, "Too expensive".
>
>Never could understand why I wanted a custom made shirt. ;-)
you money? Would you pay $50 for a shirt made here with US grown and processed
cotton or linen or would you still want an $20 one, not caring that it was 100%
produced off-shore?
You seem to be saying, "Everyone should practice what I preach because I am
right - even if I don't practice it."
You would be on a 20% ROI like white is on rice - given the chance.
nothermark
Feb 12, 2016, 8:38:43 AM2/12/16
to
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 12:40:51 -0800 (PST), Hank <nineb...@aol.com>
wrote:
I do not think you really understand the difference between a not for
profit and a for profit business. Who pays has nothing to do with it.
wrote:
profit and a for profit business. Who pays has nothing to do with it.
Vito
Feb 12, 2016, 9:14:24 AM2/12/16
to
On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 07:27:05 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
wrote:
>I get it. I also support it for most things where a bit of margin is
>not a big deal. What bugs me are the trends in the large publicly
>traded companies. Top management is way over compensated while the
>workers are systematically looted if they get to keep working.
Blame the progressive income taz structure. When the top tax bracket
was 92% an exec had to get a $1000 gross raise to take home an extra
$80. While that has changed the 'culture' still thrives.
wrote:
>I get it. I also support it for most things where a bit of margin is
>not a big deal. What bugs me are the trends in the large publicly
>traded companies. Top management is way over compensated while the
>workers are systematically looted if they get to keep working.
was 92% an exec had to get a $1000 gross raise to take home an extra
$80. While that has changed the 'culture' still thrives.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages