5 ms·

Most of the money there is in hospitals. I don't think it does the economy any good to tax those. Love to hear arguments the other way.

dmckinno 2y ago
Healthcare is a slippery slope. Don’t tax hospitals, but tax pharmaceutical companies? Don’t tax pharmaceutical companies, but tax the income of doctors? I think the point of the article is that it’s really hard to make these judgments and doing way with the whole system entirely makes the most sense, which seems reasonable to me.
- willcipriano 2y ago
  "Best I can do is tax you like you have socialized medicine[0], then force you to pay 2 - 4 fold what those other counties private systems cost to actually get care for most of your life." - Every politician in my entire life time [0]https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    Quite a few politicians suggest we take one of the various approaches the rest of the OECD countries do, as they're clearly more cost-efficient... but that gets derided as socialism.
    - willcipriano 2y ago
      Then they vote for another war instead. They also never make the point that we are already paying for it. They want to tax me more, when if they were as efficient as the NHS I'd have two healthcare systems with money left over. Medicare for all will never see the floor until everyone currently over 60 is gone, at a minimum. They are all in on it.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        The US can clearly afford both, as your chart demonstrates. It shows we pay more in tax than the other OECD countries pay in total, including taxes for healthcare. We've picked the least efficient worst-of-both-worlds scenario out of a fear of anything that sounds like socialism ("public option", "Medicare for All", etc.).
        willcipriano 2y ago
        Its corruption. Explain it in the terms I have on the national debate stage, everyone is on board. NHS style healthcare AND lower taxes. You'd win every election, but you'll never see that stage.
        whoitwas 2y ago
        No one would win anything. Money wins elections. If you had this platform and money, you find an early grave.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        antisthenes 2y ago
        > The US can clearly afford both, as your chart demonstrates. The chart doesn't demonstrate anything of the sort. By definition, sovereign governments can afford literally anything, since they can print the currency within the country. It will just cause inflation. That statement is complete and utter reductionist nonsense.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        We are currently paying for both. The fact that our current setup costs 2-3x any other OECD nation indicates reform to be more like their systems is likely to reduce costs, not increase them.
- csdreamer7 2y ago
  > Don’t tax hospitals, but tax pharmaceutical companies? Hospitals, to maintain their nonprofit status, have to provide charitable contributions. One way is when patients apply for payment reduction or discharge because they can not afford to pay. Patients need to apply for this so they have documentation to give the IRS. > Don’t tax pharmaceutical companies, but tax the income of doctors? How often do you ask a doctor to work for free? They still get paid by the hospital. Yes, pharmaceutical companies, which as far as I know are private, also have something like this. This is preventing media coverage and Congress imposing max cap on prices on public assistance programs (prices private insurance will use for leverage) so they can keep charging what they want. > I think the point of the article is that it’s really hard to make these judgments and doing way with the whole system entirely makes the most sense, which seems reasonable to me. The point of this article is to attack the nonprofit competitors to their due paying members. They gloss over many details and as I posted elsewhere; they even defensive of the tax loopholes of their due paying members.
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    > How often do you ask a doctor to work for free? They still get paid by the hospital. Oftentimes, physicians are not paid by the hospital at all. They will form consulting groups and work for the consulting group which will have a contract with the hospital, or they'll do something C2C.
    - csdreamer7 2y ago
      > Oftentimes, physicians are not paid by the hospital at all. They will form consulting groups and work for the consulting group which will have a contract with the hospital, or they'll do something C2C. This is a red herring. The hospital still pays for a service (doctors or a group representing them) while being required to make charitable contributions to keep it's nonprofit status. These charitable contributions are very important for people in poorer and rural areas of the United States that for profit entities do not want to operate in (or would demand subsidies from the government to operate in).
bagels 2y ago
I think it's hard for people to reconcile $1000 10 minute doctor visits, and $10,000 IVs with tax free status.
- steego 2y ago
  Or you could look at Kaiser Permanente, which is the exact opposite of this and the biggest nonprofit cited in this paper. Unless you go to 3rd party provider for a non-emergency, you will never get hit with this type of nonsense. Everything is reasonably priced. It’s a nonprofit organization that handles the financing and providing healthcare services which gives them an incentive to manage costs. The ACA marketplace gives them an incentive to provide good service because you can always sign up for different insurance at the end of the year if you don’t like the care they provide. Personally, I suspect this study was sponsored by the big health insurance companies who want to get in the same game.
- supertrope 2y ago
  While the exact line items are made up the money to pay nurses ultimately has to come from somewhere.
softfalcon 2y ago
It's called universal government provided healthcare. We have it in Canada. Gets rid of that nasty, unnecessary, "for profit" medical sector. Though, I think that may actually be as-large or a larger problem for America than non-profit taxation/exemption policies. You have to admit, you could clamp down on the other crap easier if healthcare being a "non-profit" wasn't such a big deal due it just being managed by the government.
EasyMark 2y ago
I think mostly what we need is transparency for nonprofits, list of all salaries, expenses, capital expenditures, bonuses, etc before one can really say what makes sense. Including for “customers” (patients). If you know how much it takes to run a nonprofit then people will begin to understand if they are price gouging or if there’s some huge expense that the general public is unaware of. We need the light of day put on these ventures so they can’t hide info AND keep their nonprofit status. For example, I wish we were much harsher on religious non profits that get mixed up in politics and support candidates and parties, they should lose their tax free status immediately.
- imgabe 2y ago
  They are already required to report this aren’t they?

dmckinno 2y ago

Healthcare is a slippery slope. Don’t tax hospitals, but tax pharmaceutical companies? Don’t tax pharmaceutical companies, but tax the income of doctors? I think the point of the article is that it’s really hard to make these judgments and doing way with the whole system entirely makes the most sense, which seems reasonable to me.

willcipriano 2y ago
"Best I can do is tax you like you have socialized medicine[0], then force you to pay 2 - 4 fold what those other counties private systems cost to actually get care for most of your life." - Every politician in my entire life time [0]https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  Quite a few politicians suggest we take one of the various approaches the rest of the OECD countries do, as they're clearly more cost-efficient... but that gets derided as socialism.
  - willcipriano 2y ago
    Then they vote for another war instead. They also never make the point that we are already paying for it. They want to tax me more, when if they were as efficient as the NHS I'd have two healthcare systems with money left over. Medicare for all will never see the floor until everyone currently over 60 is gone, at a minimum. They are all in on it.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      The US can clearly afford both, as your chart demonstrates. It shows we pay more in tax than the other OECD countries pay in total, including taxes for healthcare. We've picked the least efficient worst-of-both-worlds scenario out of a fear of anything that sounds like socialism ("public option", "Medicare for All", etc.).
      - willcipriano 2y ago
        Its corruption. Explain it in the terms I have on the national debate stage, everyone is on board. NHS style healthcare AND lower taxes. You'd win every election, but you'll never see that stage.
        whoitwas 2y ago
        No one would win anything. Money wins elections. If you had this platform and money, you find an early grave.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - antisthenes 2y ago
        > The US can clearly afford both, as your chart demonstrates. The chart doesn't demonstrate anything of the sort. By definition, sovereign governments can afford literally anything, since they can print the currency within the country. It will just cause inflation. That statement is complete and utter reductionist nonsense.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        We are currently paying for both. The fact that our current setup costs 2-3x any other OECD nation indicates reform to be more like their systems is likely to reduce costs, not increase them.
csdreamer7 2y ago
> Don’t tax hospitals, but tax pharmaceutical companies? Hospitals, to maintain their nonprofit status, have to provide charitable contributions. One way is when patients apply for payment reduction or discharge because they can not afford to pay. Patients need to apply for this so they have documentation to give the IRS. > Don’t tax pharmaceutical companies, but tax the income of doctors? How often do you ask a doctor to work for free? They still get paid by the hospital. Yes, pharmaceutical companies, which as far as I know are private, also have something like this. This is preventing media coverage and Congress imposing max cap on prices on public assistance programs (prices private insurance will use for leverage) so they can keep charging what they want. > I think the point of the article is that it’s really hard to make these judgments and doing way with the whole system entirely makes the most sense, which seems reasonable to me. The point of this article is to attack the nonprofit competitors to their due paying members. They gloss over many details and as I posted elsewhere; they even defensive of the tax loopholes of their due paying members.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  > How often do you ask a doctor to work for free? They still get paid by the hospital. Oftentimes, physicians are not paid by the hospital at all. They will form consulting groups and work for the consulting group which will have a contract with the hospital, or they'll do something C2C.
  - csdreamer7 2y ago
    > Oftentimes, physicians are not paid by the hospital at all. They will form consulting groups and work for the consulting group which will have a contract with the hospital, or they'll do something C2C. This is a red herring. The hospital still pays for a service (doctors or a group representing them) while being required to make charitable contributions to keep it's nonprofit status. These charitable contributions are very important for people in poorer and rural areas of the United States that for profit entities do not want to operate in (or would demand subsidies from the government to operate in).

bagels 2y ago

I think it's hard for people to reconcile $1000 10 minute doctor visits, and $10,000 IVs with tax free status.

steego 2y ago
Or you could look at Kaiser Permanente, which is the exact opposite of this and the biggest nonprofit cited in this paper. Unless you go to 3rd party provider for a non-emergency, you will never get hit with this type of nonsense. Everything is reasonably priced. It’s a nonprofit organization that handles the financing and providing healthcare services which gives them an incentive to manage costs. The ACA marketplace gives them an incentive to provide good service because you can always sign up for different insurance at the end of the year if you don’t like the care they provide. Personally, I suspect this study was sponsored by the big health insurance companies who want to get in the same game.
supertrope 2y ago
While the exact line items are made up the money to pay nurses ultimately has to come from somewhere.

softfalcon 2y ago

It's called universal government provided healthcare. We have it in Canada. Gets rid of that nasty, unnecessary, "for profit" medical sector. Though, I think that may actually be as-large or a larger problem for America than non-profit taxation/exemption policies. You have to admit, you could clamp down on the other crap easier if healthcare being a "non-profit" wasn't such a big deal due it just being managed by the government.

EasyMark 2y ago

I think mostly what we need is transparency for nonprofits, list of all salaries, expenses, capital expenditures, bonuses, etc before one can really say what makes sense. Including for “customers” (patients). If you know how much it takes to run a nonprofit then people will begin to understand if they are price gouging or if there’s some huge expense that the general public is unaware of. We need the light of day put on these ventures so they can’t hide info AND keep their nonprofit status. For example, I wish we were much harsher on religious non profits that get mixed up in politics and support candidates and parties, they should lose their tax free status immediately.

imgabe 2y ago
They are already required to report this aren’t they?