Definitely lots of problems with the current system.

2. In 1980 there were still many non-profit hospitals and clinics, many operated by religious organizations (like Sisters of St. Joseph Carondolet or large denominations like the Methodists, Lutherans, or baptists). Most of these non-profits either closed or were sold to for-profit companies. What effect on cost might the departure of non-profits from health care had? — Bitter Crank

And now for some fact checking:

In 2003, 62% were non-profit, 20% for profit, and 18% government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_hospital

In 2010, 58% were non-profit, 21% government, and 20% for profit. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0ahUKEwi8_YvRlrvVAhXM1CYKHYwWACUQFghdMAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nonprofithealthcare.org%2Fresources%2FBasicFacts-NonprofitHospitals.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEK6qKqi-gwE0__bMHEPL3aJqnYTQ

In 2017, 51% were non-profit, 19% for profit, and 30% government. http://www.aha.org/research/rc/stat-studies/fast-facts.shtml

The 2017 percentages I had to compute because it only gave raw numbers. Assuming it valid, the trend is not toward making nonprofits into profits, but into making profits into government run.

Interesting.

But what is a non-profit these days? Just going on the hospitals in the Minneapolis metropolitan area, the nature of "non-profit" seems to have changed. Many of the hospitals here were formerly denomination affiliated not-for-profit institutions and have since collapsed into several chains of hospitals and clinics which have little resemblance to "not-for-profit". And what is a government-owned hospital but a not-for-profit?

I don't see much difference, these days, between "for-profit" and "not-for-profit".

(Quality or care, based on readmission rankings, is a mixed bag across the board, across the US.)

"What’s the difference between nonprofit and for-profit hospitals?

Hospital officials say there are only two major differences. For-profit hospitals pay property and income taxes while nonprofit hospitals don’t. And for-profit hospitals have avenues for raising capital that nonprofits don’t have. (The ability to access capital is important for hospitals looking to upgrade facilities or buy costly medical equipment or information technology systems.)

But critics of for-profit hospitals — including labor unions, consumer groups and some legislators — say there are other differences, too. They note that unlike nonprofit hospitals, for-profit hospitals have to answer to shareholders, who may not have the same interests as the local communities. Critics also warn that for-profit hospitals are more likely to stop offering money-losing services."

The full article: https://ctmirror.org/2014/04/25/how-different-are-for-profit-and-nonprofit-hospitals/

The overreach is in the form of forcing citizens to purchase a service from private industry. This is unprecedented. — Rich

Not entirely. There's compulsory car insurance. It's just that in this case there isn't an analogy to not having a car.

But even then, something being unprecedented doesn't mean it's bad. Seems like a superfluous (and nonsensical) complaint in lieu of the accusation of overreach.

With cart insurance, one had the choice to buy a car. One does not have a choice about living. That the government can now force citizens to purchase services from private industry brings us one step closer to government totally ruling our lives. Orwell was correct in ascertaining that Totalitarianism will be a product of Leftist thinking. People just don't know when to stop. They literally want a Big Brother. What irony?

No wonder Democrats don't care about losing more and more liberties under Obama. They don't want them and don't understand why others might. Is it now more understandable that Russians like Totalitarianism?

With cart insurance, one had the choice to buy a car. One does not have a choice about living. — Rich

Yes, I said that.

That the government can now force citizens to purchase services from private industry brings us one step closer to government totally ruling our lives. Orwell was correct in ascertaining that Totalitarianism will be a product of Leftist thinking. People just don't know when to stop. They literally want a Big Brother. What irony?

That's one slippery slope.

Yep, and we are sliding down that slope into total Government intervention and control of our lives. It is all happening in a very short period of time. The Left wants But Brother, and they got one.

Yep, and we are sliding down that slope into total Government intervention and control of our lives. It is all happening in a very short period of time. The Left wants But Brother, and they got one. — Rich

Again, this is just a slippery slope fallacy. You might as well argue that the conservative desire to stop homosexuals from marrying will inevitably lead to banning marriage entirely. It's a ridiculous argument.

No fallacy. It is happening in real time and the Left is promoting more and more if it.

No wonder Democrats don't care about losing more and more liberties under Obama. They don't want them and don't understand why others might. Is it now more understandable that Russians like Totalitarianism? — Rich

Of course they want them. That's why they push for equality and against discrimination. That's why they're by-and-large pro-choice rather than pro-life.

And I wonder why you're placing all the blame on Democrats and the left. The Republicans and the right want to restrict certain liberties too (e.g. gay marriage).

So what this really comes down to is a disagreement between liberals and conservatives over which liberties are (more) important and over which areas the government has a legitimate reach. Which is fine. But your argument is just a slippery slope, and seemingly also moving the goalposts (unless you want to accuse Republicans and the right of the same totalitarian tendencies).

Of course they want them. That's why they push for equality and against discrimination. That's why they're by-and-large pro-choice rather than pro-life. — Michael

Right. And the benevolent Government ruled by the top 1% is going to give it all to them - for free nonetheless. Notice any changes lately or is all empty talk? Let's just say it is very easy to con people, especially those who think they are way too intelligent to be conned.

The largest transfer of wealth, by far, from the middle class to the top 1% occurred under Obama and now he gets $400,000 for a one hour speech from Goldman (which pretty much controls currency in the U.S. Clinton got her $180 million from Wall Street. And the middle class? Totally obliterated. What did the a Left get in return? Oh, some promises of equality-I guess in the poor house and the feeling that they did so much good for those who aren't as smart as them.

The Benevolent Government.

Right. And the benevolent Government ruled by the top 1% is going to give it all to them - for free nonetheless. Notice any changes lately or is all empty talk? Let's just say it is very easy to con people, especially those who think they are way too intelligent to be conned.

The largest transfer of wealth, by far, from the middle class to the top 1% occurred under Obama and now he gets $400,000 for a one hour speech from Goldman (which pretty much controls currency in the U.S. Clinton got her $180 million from Wall Street. And the middle class? Totally obliterated. What did the a Left get in return? Oh, some promises of equality-I guess in the poor house and the feeling that they did so much good for those who aren't as smart as them.

The Benevolent Government. — Rich

What are you going on about now? Doesn't seem at all related to what we were discussing. So let's add a red herring to your list of fallacies.

We were talking about the Benevolent Government who was going to take care of everyone's health.

Scientific American ran an article quite a few years ago about profit vs. non-profit hospitals and outcomes. They showed that for-profit hospitals (Humana would have been the prime example at the time of the article's writing) were more expensive, were less efficient, provided less service to communities, and so on.

Whether non-profits are now much different than for-profits is probably less clear. Many non-profits, for instance, are rated as mediocre in providing excellent care. That's probably true for many for-profits as well. It isn't clear to me why some hospitals are able to deliver much better outcomes than other hospitals. For instance, a handful of states have low rates of readmission for a given problem (that is, the problem is successfully treated the first time around). Other states have much higher rates of readmission (patients were discharged, did poorly, and needed to be readmitted for the same problem). I don't know what all of the factors are, or why entire states seem to have low first-time treatment success.

Let's not forget that increasingly people are being thought of as--and thinking of themselves as--"customers" rather than as patients. There was an article not too long ago--Harper's Magazine, I believe--about this phenomenon and about a surgeon who refused to be insulted by "customer satisfaction" surveys and chose to retire. A dental practice I went to last year emailed a survey after every visit asking how satisfied I was with the care I received, the wait time, etc. Is this not unprecedented for medical care? Patients being asked for their feedback like customers of retail or fast-food restaurant chains?! Do the hospitals, clinics, etc. now hire, promote and fire doctors based on subjective "customer" satisfaction as indicated in a survey?!

That the government can now force citizens to purchase services from private industry brings us one step closer to government totally ruling our lives. — Rich

There's no difference between the government taxing us to pay private companies to insure for health care and it taxing us to to pay private companies to build roads. The argument that Obamacare is an ineffective and destructive government expansion into private enterprise is consistent with conservative thought, but the validity of that argument is ultimately empirical, as opposed to your purely ideological statement. That is, to simply decry Obamacare as an unprecedented step down the slippery slope toward unamerican socialism without offering an empirical basis for its rejection, sounds like an empty rightist rant.

The fact that The Affordable Care Act isn't affordable and doesn't address spiraling health care costs is the reason to reject it. That one side will allow the law to exist as is for the purposes of protecting it and the other will allow it to exist because it can't agree to the best way to detonate it points out that neither side really cares what the law does as much as what it represents.

The government first decides what we should buy (decided by the lobbyists for the medical who bribe to the hilt) and then the government tells us we have to buy it. No wonder they Democratic Party is in shambles. Just a bunch of Wall Street a__ kissers.

There's no difference between the government taxing us to pay private companies to insure for health care and it taxing us to to pay private companies to build roads. — Hanover

Very few individuals, if any, can build a network of roads on their own. The overwhelming majority of individuals can purchase an insurance policy on their own. Exploiting the latter in morally and constitutionally questionable ways may be good politics if your goal is to maintain or increase your power by appealing to certain voters, but it is bad politics if your goal is to enact well-vetted reforms that will endure.

There's no difference between the government taxing us to pay private companies to insure for health care and it taxing us to to pay private companies to build roads.
— Hanover

Very few individuals, if any, can build a network of roads on their own. The overwhelming majority of individuals can purchase an insurance policy on their own.

You're way off, not only can most citizens not afford health insurance for themselves and their children at their present rates or without a huge deductible, many are either denied insurance for present conditions or are given rates way out of affordability for those conditions.

Exploiting the latter in morally and constitutionally questionable ways may be good politics if your goal is to maintain or increase your power by appealing to certain voters, but it is bad politics if your goal is to enact well-vetted reforms that will endure.

Providing Single Payer health care so all our citizens, including all our children, have sufficient health care isn't exploiting anything; it's being a civilized First World country that doesn't let its citizens die because of lack of money. It's a far better money spent than the trillions we spend on missiles, bombs, drones, and other weapons every year.

You're way off, not only can most citizens not afford health insurance for themselves and their children at their present rates or without a huge deductible, many are either denied insurance for present conditions or are given rates way out of affordability for those conditions. — Thanatos Sand

It's currently illegal to sell a policy that excludes for preexisting conditions. The fact that you admit the Affordable Care Act is unaffordable acknowledges it should be repealed.

Well that's silly. Giant national debt. What's affordable?

It's absolutely not illegal to raise the rates for pre-existing conditions and not to cover those pre-existing conditions in the policy. And it certainly is not illegal to increase the deductible for that pre-existing condition to a ridiculous number, rendering health care unaffordable anyway.

I never said the ACA was unaffordable for all, but it will certainly be better than the GOP plan that just wants to really screw the Poor. But you and I know Single Payer/Medicare-for-All is the best approach anyway, since it will cover everybody and make it affordable for all. I'm glad we can admit that.

It's absolutely not illegal to raise the rates for pre-existing conditions and not to cover those pre-existing conditions in the policy. And it certainly is not illegal to increase the deductible for that pre-existing condition to a ridiculous number, rendering health care unaffordable anyway. — Thanatos Sand

They can't exclude based on preexisting condition nor vary the rates based upon preexisting condition. The rates were to be kept under control in theory by mandating everyone buy insurance, including those with no preexisting condition. The system has failed because many refuse to purchase insurance despite the mandate and because of spiraling health care costs.

They can't exclude based on preexisting condition nor vary the rates based upon preexisting condition.

They absolutely can vary the rates, areas of coverage and deductible based on preexisting condition and they do.

The rates were to be kept under control in theory by mandating everyone buy insurance, including those with no preexisting condition.

The rates were not to be kept under control and weren't as the insurance companies never planned to not raise them and they did. And they certainly can and will under the GOP plan.

The system has failed because many refuse to purchase insurance despite the mandate and because of spiraling health care costs.

No, the system has failed because it's a bad, expensive system that still leaves many Americans uncovered. Medicare-for-All will fix that. Since you want all Americans covered, you must want that.

From the HHS website:

"Under current law, health insurance companies can’t refuse to cover you or charge you more just because you have a “pre-existing condition” — that is, a health problem you had before the date that new health coverage starts.

These rules went into effect for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014."
https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/pre-existing-conditions/index.html

This is the crux of the ACA.

Sorry, that's just rates. That says nothing about increasing deductible or refusing to cover the pre-existing condition. And that current law will change with the GOP plan. Now address Medicare-For-All or the discussion is pointless.

From the same site: "Health insurers can no longer charge more or deny coverage to you or your child because of a pre-existing health condition like asthma, diabetes, or cancer. They cannot limit benefits for that condition either."

Your understanding of the ACA is completely wrong.

And that current law will change with the GOP plan. Now address Medicare-For-All or the discussion is pointless. — Thanatos Sand

There is no GOP plan. It died in the Senate. The conversation is pointless because you have no idea what the ACA is.

No, you didn't address what I said at all. So, it is your understanding of the ACA is completely wrong.

And there is still a GOP plan to fight ACA. So, this conversation is pointless and over since you don't understand what the ACA is and how bad it is, and you failed to address Single Payer, the best option.

So, we're done and I won't be reading any more of your posts.