10 ms·
Price caps are pathetic stand-ins for profit caps.
by redsoundbanner 3y ago
Price caps are pathetic stand-ins for profit caps.
- jncfhnb 3y agoProfit caps incentivize bigger costs and bigger payouts
- collegeburner 3y agoi do not care for them, but profit cap is not the same as margin cap
- jncfhnb 3y agoProfit cap is not a real thing as far as I know But if it were, it would encourage serving the smallest possible cohort and doing no more business
- hamandcheese 3y agoNotably, the Affordable Care Act limited administration costs to 20%.
- TexanFeller 3y agoI’ve always suspected that that incentivized health insurance companies to let hospitals inflate costs. If the government forbids me from increasing my percentage of the pie and I need to increase revenue I have to increase the size of the pie.
- FooBarBizBazz 3y agoYes, this and vertical integration. The insurance company may have limited profit, but if the hospital doesn't, and they're both owned by the same parent company, then the prices "inside the control volume" can be whatever fiction is most convenient to report to the government.
- l33t7332273 3y agoHow many insurance companies are under the same parent org as hospitals?
- Jensson 3y agoLooked up the largest health insurer, they operate hospitals: > Kaiser Permanente operates 39 hospitals and more than 700 medical offices, with over 300,000 personnel, including more than 87,000 physicians and nurses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Permanente https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Permanente The second largest also owns Optum with 60k doctors: > Optum Care is a family of 60,000 doctors in 2,000 locations nationwide. We work together to help 20+ million people live healthier lives. https://www.optum.com/en/about-us/optum-care.html https://www.optum.com/en/about-us/optum-care.html So I'd ask you back, how many insurance companies aren't under the same parent org as hospitals? The 2 largest are, wouldn't surprise me if most are.
- l33t7332273 3y agoI’m not sure. I don’t know much about healthcare in the United States.
- oatmeal1 3y agoProfit caps disincentivize companies to be efficient, meaning they'll just waste resources that could be used better elsewhere in the economy. Capping price or profit does nothing to address the root cause of the problem - lack of competition. Lack of competition could be addressed by finding ways to reduce regulatory hurdles to enter the market, or by breaking up monopolies with anti-trust action.
- redsoundbanner 3y ago>Profit caps disincentivize companies to be efficient Considering I was just laid off for the sake of "efficiency" that is perfectly fine by me.
- financypants 3y agoWe don’t care what is fine by you
- undersuit 3y agoI'll care if you don't.
- sgammon 3y agoScrew all the people who weren’t misfortunate in your exact way, I guess?
- teitoklien 3y agoYou got laid off because they dont need you. I understand how traumatic and life destroying it can be sometimes, but long term it destroys the future of overall population, to prevent firing people who are no longer necessary. We’d all be stuck as farmers, tailors and wood cutters, if firing people was penalised or efficiency was punished, no one would want to make their company more efficient with wood cutting machines or sewing machines, or tractors for farming, etc. In a small timeframe it is horrible to lose a job, but the state is responsible for protecting both the future generations balanced with comfort and safety of present population. A affordable unemployment insurance is a much better idea tbh compared to profit caps or price caps. Good luck tho!, may you get a great job soon. May god bless you.
- collegeburner 3y agocost-plus has largely proved to be a busted business model. in industries where it is de rigueur, such as defense and space, traditional business models have driven efficiency improvements and new product development alongside price decreases.
- akira2501 3y agoWouldn't that just be taxes?
- mjevans 3y agoThe government should not be prohibited (in some places they are! Muni broadband as an example) from offering competing services. Proper competition would limit market malfunction.
- roenxi 3y agoThe prohibition should stand. People should have a voluntary option to pay or not pay for services as they choose. Except I suppose in quite exceptional circumstances. If a group of locals want to pool their cash and start up a local broadband service then good on them, best of luck. But taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook to help them.
- mjevans 3y agoUSPS is an example. It's sort of a public utility that has some strange requirements, like it _must_ __offer__ service to everyone. In some places this is less profitable, and private postal / shipping firms might not even offer their own service (or pay USPS for the last leg instead). However, because USPS exists, there is a ceiling to how much other firms can charge without differentiating their services to make it worth the difference in cost. It helps ensure the market functions with proper competition. For any other market where distortion (dysfunctional market) is observed, the solution is not to mandate the impossible from the existing players, but to modify the market conditions where they are broken.
- dimensi0nal 3y agocompeting with USPS mail delivery is illegal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes
- GreenWatermelon 3y ago> But taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook to help them. Aren't said locals literally tax payers? And they want their tax money to go to something actually useful for them.