4 ms·

Hospitals will have all of those things the moment people are willing to pay for them. Some hospitals have those now - for the sort of hospitals that predominan

Hospitals will have all of those things the moment people are willing to pay for them. Some hospitals have those now - for the sort of hospitals that predominantly serve patients with excellent insurance for high margin activities or who are paying cash. Eg, top tier specialty surgical centers and dedicated cancer centers. Most patients can’t afford their meds, or any type of hospital stay. They’re not paying a premium for extra square footage and art on the walls.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
Most patients can't afford the organised health insurance scam industry. That's where most of the money goes. Ending that scam and asking patients to add an extra percent or two on their bills to pay for good food and a good environment would barely be a rounding error compared to the banditry that forces them to pay outrageous and unjustifiable fees for common meds and routine medical services - never mind specialised care.
- arkades 7y ago
  Most health insurance has a profit margin in the vicinity of 10%. They introduce many problems into the healthcare market, but if you think they’re the reason people can’t afford healthcare, you are mistaken. I don’t mean to sound snarky here, but: if you believe you can boil down one of the most fractured, complex, and heavily regulated industries (really, set of inter-related industries) in the country to a single “that group of assholes over there cause all the problems” bulletpoint, you have missed 99% of the story.
  - Kalium 7y ago
    > Most health insurance has a profit margin in the vicinity of 10%. They introduce many problems into the healthcare market, but if you think they’re the reason people can’t afford healthcare, you are mistaken. People see a lot of money flowing into insurers and hear about large profit numbers. That makes it feel like they're the obvious problem.
    - derivagral 7y ago
      I've (anecdotally) noticed that people and candidates tend to refer to insurance costs, vs costs of the underlying. My perception is that they want "medical insurance" to really be a subsidy, not classic insurance.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    > Most health insurance has a profit margin in the vicinity of 10%. Well, that's partially because they're legally required to spend 80% of premiums on patient care. The end result is that higher premiums mean higher profits out of that fixed percentage of margin they're permitted to skim, so they don't fight cost increases too much - until people outright stop being able to afford the premiums, increases in them benefit the insurer's bottom line.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    The wages of all the people working in health insurance don't appear as profit, but if you removed the industry all that money - and the rents - would be released. To recapitulate it's not just the profit, it's the entire sectors costs that you release by removing the need for that sector. There would be incidental costs, like more unemployment, and possibly some more admin within the healthcare system; though from what I hear it would more probably reduce admin costs on the healthcare end too.
_carl_jung 7y ago
Interestingly, this comment can be read as either pro-socialist or pro-free-market. In either case, it's plainly true. The cost has to be covered _somehow_. We should find a way to make it happen.
- arkades 7y ago
  Thank you. My politics aside - which on healthcare include both socialism and free market capitalism, to different degrees in different contexts - I really was just trying to communicate the straight fact, and I’m very appreciative of your recognition of that. In these discussions, it often seems like people assume that healthcare and associated amenities are created from thin air, and when less than ideal, are so due strictly to malice or indifference. Which couldn’t be further from the truth.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago

Most patients can't afford the organised health insurance scam industry. That's where most of the money goes. Ending that scam and asking patients to add an extra percent or two on their bills to pay for good food and a good environment would barely be a rounding error compared to the banditry that forces them to pay outrageous and unjustifiable fees for common meds and routine medical services - never mind specialised care.

arkades 7y ago
Most health insurance has a profit margin in the vicinity of 10%. They introduce many problems into the healthcare market, but if you think they’re the reason people can’t afford healthcare, you are mistaken. I don’t mean to sound snarky here, but: if you believe you can boil down one of the most fractured, complex, and heavily regulated industries (really, set of inter-related industries) in the country to a single “that group of assholes over there cause all the problems” bulletpoint, you have missed 99% of the story.
- Kalium 7y ago
  > Most health insurance has a profit margin in the vicinity of 10%. They introduce many problems into the healthcare market, but if you think they’re the reason people can’t afford healthcare, you are mistaken. People see a lot of money flowing into insurers and hear about large profit numbers. That makes it feel like they're the obvious problem.
  - derivagral 7y ago
    I've (anecdotally) noticed that people and candidates tend to refer to insurance costs, vs costs of the underlying. My perception is that they want "medical insurance" to really be a subsidy, not classic insurance.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > Most health insurance has a profit margin in the vicinity of 10%. Well, that's partially because they're legally required to spend 80% of premiums on patient care. The end result is that higher premiums mean higher profits out of that fixed percentage of margin they're permitted to skim, so they don't fight cost increases too much - until people outright stop being able to afford the premiums, increases in them benefit the insurer's bottom line.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  The wages of all the people working in health insurance don't appear as profit, but if you removed the industry all that money - and the rents - would be released. To recapitulate it's not just the profit, it's the entire sectors costs that you release by removing the need for that sector. There would be incidental costs, like more unemployment, and possibly some more admin within the healthcare system; though from what I hear it would more probably reduce admin costs on the healthcare end too.

_carl_jung 7y ago

Interestingly, this comment can be read as either pro-socialist or pro-free-market. In either case, it's plainly true. The cost has to be covered _somehow_. We should find a way to make it happen.

arkades 7y ago
Thank you. My politics aside - which on healthcare include both socialism and free market capitalism, to different degrees in different contexts - I really was just trying to communicate the straight fact, and I’m very appreciative of your recognition of that. In these discussions, it often seems like people assume that healthcare and associated amenities are created from thin air, and when less than ideal, are so due strictly to malice or indifference. Which couldn’t be further from the truth.