Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hospitals that make profits should pay taxes

statnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 212 posts

Re: Hospitals that make profits should pay taxes

#101

Post by trust_bt_verify »

echelon wrote: post #74
aaomidi wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s really amusing when tech people who have a full understanding of singletons and basic statistics always refer to themselves when making a broader statement about society. I always wonder why people seemingly can’t apply their experiences beyond themselves when they already do that day to day at work. A lot of “personal decisions” are consequences of society. Depending on where you are in society, you’re going to…

> I always wonder why people seemingly can’t apply their experiences beyond themselves I grew up lower middle class, and I didn't have it easy. I have no idea who my birth parents were. I had an abusive father. I was bullied and beaten relentlessly by the other children that didn't like on-the-spectrum kids. I didn't party like those that abused me, I withdrew into myself and turned that into hard work. So when I see…

What are they demanding that you are not? Everyone wants to be healthy and they want a medical system which helps them get there. If partying is a problem, they should be able to talk to a doctor about it, and it should be paid for as a part of the services provided by society.

Re: Hospitals that make profits should pay taxes

#102

Post by billy_bitchtits »

ec109685 wrote: post #42

Isn’t the distinction that non-profit hospitals have to plow surplus’s revenue back into the hospital versus distributing profit to investors / owners? If so, the tax exempt status seems aligned with how for profit businesses are taxed?

margin is mission

Re: Hospitals that make profits should pay taxes

#103

Post by Wool2662 »

echelon wrote: post #74
aaomidi wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s really amusing when tech people who have a full understanding of singletons and basic statistics always refer to themselves when making a broader statement about society. I always wonder why people seemingly can’t apply their experiences beyond themselves when they already do that day to day at work. A lot of “personal decisions” are consequences of society. Depending on where you are in society, you’re going to…

> I always wonder why people seemingly can’t apply their experiences beyond themselves I grew up lower middle class, and I didn't have it easy. I have no idea who my birth parents were. I had an abusive father. I was bullied and beaten relentlessly by the other children that didn't like on-the-spectrum kids. I didn't party like those that abused me, I withdrew into myself and turned that into hard work. So when I see…

Ah yes those people wanting real healthcare. What entitled idiots. Anyways let's finance another 200 mio yacht for the pharma ceos, they worked hard after all. You might be one of the one day since you work hard...

Re: Hospitals that make profits should pay taxes

#105

Post by lostmsu »

simonbarker87 wrote: post #61
echelon wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Random things like cancer and genetic diseases happen, but an awful lot of disease is caused by personal choice. Drinking, smoking, unhealthy lifestyle, etc. Personal behaviors are the cause of a huge portion of our healthcare costs. I feel the same way about the recent auto insurance increases being caused by the shopping behaviors of others. Expensive EVs get completely totaled in accidents, and now everyone has to…

But you’re already paying for other people’s illnesses through insurance with the downside of layers of middlemen taking a profit. At least here in the UK an emergency or cancer won’t bankrupt me, for the rest of it I can choose to get private health insurance if I like or wait for the NHS to work through the queue (which is sadly becoming increasingly common as our government is obsessed with copying what America do…

In the US it is not a necessity. There are private insurance plans with entry restrictions (e. g. you are ineligible if you smoke)

Re: Hospitals that make profits should pay taxes

#106

Post by quickthrowman »

nradov wrote: post #30
jama211 wrote: post #4

Wait… they don’t already? What is even going on over there?

For-profit hospitals that actually turn profits do pay income taxes. The concern is with non-profit hospitals. They don't distribute profits to shareholders. But some do pay high salaries to employees or have large and growing endowment funds. The author is arguing that threatening to tax some of those funds would incentivize non-profit hospitals to lower prices and give out more charity care. This isn't necessarily…

> The concern is with non-profit hospitals. They don't distribute profits to shareholders. But some do pay high salaries to employees or have large and growing endowment funds.

The non-profit healthcare organizations in my metro area spend tons of money expanding by building new clinics, surgery centers, specialty clinics, hospital wings, etc.

Re: Hospitals that make profits should pay taxes

#107

Post by nradov »

codegeek wrote: post #36
throwaway918274 wrote: post #12

1. I go into hospital and come out with 90k bill - I have insurance and I pay my copay of $130. 2. Insurance says "nah, we'll give you 18k" 3. Hospital goes "ok". 4. Hospital writes off as a 72k loss, which essentialy is a "tax deduction". This is good for me, but such a perverse incentive for the hospital.

This is not good for you in long term. This is how the insurance mafia operates and why everything is so expensive. U maybhave a so called "good" insurance but someone is paying somewhere. A 90k bill should not be a thing regardless.

There are certainly examples of outrageous and abusive billing practices; policy makers should do more to reign those in. But a single MRI machine can cost $3M. Weeks in an ICU can burn up hundreds of hours of staff time. It's easy to see how the bill for a complex episode of care can exceed $90K even when the provider organization isn't making a profit.

Re: Hospitals that make profits should pay taxes

#108

Post by tialaramex »

wormius wrote: post #40
jraph wrote: post #19

They should be a well funded public service that don't make a profit in the first place.

As a kid I didn't know much about "government", but I thought surely it must be Police, Firefighters and Medical Professionals. If you have a siren on your truck, you are government was my thinking. These are all "public goods" and even as a kid with minimal "civics" education (and what I had was pretty much 100% Pro Usa America Is A Christian Nation for those formative years that I'm talking about). I understood tha…

As a consequence of the two intersecting facts that this is in fact a for-profit company and the United States is organised such that this, as with many things, is regulated by the fifty States rather than federally, there's not even a training requirement.

That is, the people driving a police car, fire truck or ambulance might have no training in how to do so properly, despite the (not unreasonable) expectation from the public that they'll perform better and the legal difference in how they are treated when doing so. Some employers might do better, but there's no universal standard.

The results are predictable, excess death and injuries as a result of giving inadequately trained individuals a relatively heavier, more powerful vehicle.

Re: Hospitals that make profits should pay taxes

#109

Post by FireBeyond »

tyre wrote: post #51
lupire wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you consider ambulance emergency service should be public service, that "sirens" argument doesn't apply to non-emergency care where you have time to make a selection among private competitors.

If it is non-emergency, why do they need sirens?

Paramedic here. Patients who are stable, we generally transport to the hospital "routine" (no lights/sirens). Similar for inter-facility transport (taking someone from a nursing facility to chemo or imaging).

The only reasons we generally transport "priority" (lights/sirens) is for unstable patients or time critical: acute cardiac or respiratory issues, stroke, hemorrhagic or multi-system trauma, or shock.

But even patients presenting stable can deteriote en route.

As an aside, generally, in most areas, what makes the biggest difference to getting a patient to definitive care in a timely manner is not lights/sirens, nor speed, it's "Opticom" (also known as traffic light pre-empting). Visual (strobe), or occasionally radio that communicates with traffic lights to give us a steady flow of green lights. That coupled with people moving over is the big difference. Speed is just an increased liability (fun fact, most state laws grant emergency vehicle drivers the ability to 'disregard' any road law while operating in any emergency mode, but that comes with a "presumptively at-fault" for any incident that occurs in that mode, i.e. you will be considered at fault unless there's evidence to the contrary).

Re: Hospitals that make profits should pay taxes

#110

Post by hibikir »

nradov wrote: post #84
ryanSrich wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or. It's more like this - $90k bill - you pay your annual $10k deductible - the remaining $80k is only covered 80% because emergency visits only have 80% co insurance - you now owe $16k, after you've already paid $10k out of pocket for the deductible This is a real thing that happened to me recently. Not to mention I pay $1500/month for a family of 4. Nothing, absolutely nothing about the U.S. healthcare pricing stru…

I don't know your personal situation but most consumers who obtain medical insurance through their employer or a state exchange can pick between bronze/silver/gold plans that trade off monthly premiums versus deductible/co-pay/co-insurance amounts. High deductible plans can be a great option for many consumers, especially those who are willing to take on more risk and actively shop around for non-emergency care.

The trick of the current plans, which wasn't the same back in the day, is that hospital and ER costs after the fact are nor covered 100% after deductible: Most plans say 90%. So yes, we might be better off with the plan that covers less, but ultimately the problem is that we are risking far more than the deductible, as a truly catastrophic problem will go way, way past the deductible... and out of pocket maximums can be far higher than deductibles.

Most of us now have very few employer-based options, which happen to be almost always better because the employer subsidizes some. So it's not unlikely to see that the options you'd prefer are not available. High deductible, but OOP maximum very close to the deductible? Sorry, not available, go look at the secondary market for more insurance. It's a very difficult environment to make decisions on, and most people are just not all that well equipped financially to deal with it. The products have gotten way too complicated for the vast majority of people.

Post reply on HN