3 ms·

My recollection is that BlueCross was a non-profit until Reagan became president.

by gardenfelder 4y ago

tptacek 4y ago
Blue Cross is still a non-profit.
- throwawaymaths 4y ago
  depends on the state.
- pjmorris 4y ago
  I've got a friend who works at a big non-profit hospital. There's a budget term of art, 'Revenue in excess of expenses,' into which flows a large amount of money that would be called profit elsewhere. I haven't found a detailed report on BCBS finances, but I'm looking now. Non-profit doesn't mean there's no extra money, it only means an entity is organized in a particular way.
  - idontpost 4y ago
    [dead]
  - mc32 4y ago
    By definition, in order to continue as a going concern, they have to have more revenue than expenses. There is new equipment, treatments, raises, maintenance, inflation, etc. I guess one could have an all-volunteer hospital where everything is donated, from time, and equipment to land and buildings, etc.
    - pjmorris 4y ago
      > new equipment, treatments, raises, maintenance, inflation, etc Much of these are expenses. Other organizations have ways of distinguishing between what's needed and what's extra, why do you think hospitals have nothing extra?
      - mc32 4y ago
        Yes, but people typically think of expenses as more or less operating expenses.
- antisthenes 4y ago
  It's a meaningless distinction if you're still allowed to raise your prices and then adjust your "costs" within a giant opaque black box that you call the chargemaster. Lack of price controls and transparency is one (of many) of the reasons health care is so expensive.
- danielvf 4y ago
  The parent association that owns the Blue Cross brand is non-profit. However the individual companies (at least all the ones I've examined) are for profit - and in fact are quite profitable. For example, the entire revenue of the parent association is smaller than the profits of only Blue Cross South Carolina.
  - gardenfelder 4y ago
    That's what I was talking about. That happened when Reagan took office.

My recollection is that BlueCross was a non-profit until Reagan became president.

tptacek 4y ago

Blue Cross is still a non-profit.

throwawaymaths 4y ago
depends on the state.
pjmorris 4y ago
I've got a friend who works at a big non-profit hospital. There's a budget term of art, 'Revenue in excess of expenses,' into which flows a large amount of money that would be called profit elsewhere. I haven't found a detailed report on BCBS finances, but I'm looking now. Non-profit doesn't mean there's no extra money, it only means an entity is organized in a particular way.
- idontpost 4y ago
  [dead]
- mc32 4y ago
  By definition, in order to continue as a going concern, they have to have more revenue than expenses. There is new equipment, treatments, raises, maintenance, inflation, etc. I guess one could have an all-volunteer hospital where everything is donated, from time, and equipment to land and buildings, etc.
  - pjmorris 4y ago
    > new equipment, treatments, raises, maintenance, inflation, etc Much of these are expenses. Other organizations have ways of distinguishing between what's needed and what's extra, why do you think hospitals have nothing extra?
    - mc32 4y ago
      Yes, but people typically think of expenses as more or less operating expenses.
antisthenes 4y ago
It's a meaningless distinction if you're still allowed to raise your prices and then adjust your "costs" within a giant opaque black box that you call the chargemaster. Lack of price controls and transparency is one (of many) of the reasons health care is so expensive.
danielvf 4y ago
The parent association that owns the Blue Cross brand is non-profit. However the individual companies (at least all the ones I've examined) are for profit - and in fact are quite profitable. For example, the entire revenue of the parent association is smaller than the profits of only Blue Cross South Carolina.
- gardenfelder 4y ago
  That's what I was talking about. That happened when Reagan took office.