Profits Affect Cost & Quality of U.S. Health care in a Positive Way

the only trashing that possibly keeps up with "insurance company bashing" is "profit bashing". it's a shame, as most folks who have the opportunity to take a few economics classes learn that profits are generally a very positive force for society . "normal profits" (which exclude monopoly situations) basically provide for three essential elements of business: 1) a return on capital, 2) an incentive to reduce costs and increase productivity, and 3) a reward for innovation. when it comes to delivery, the private sector will almost always deliver a better result for less cost than government .
one of the biggest problems with our government today is that it has become incredibly INEFFECTIVE at one of its core roles -- regulation. the agencies who are tasked to regulate have dropped the ball on everything from fraud to the financial collapse. and the congress has become so "bought & paid for" that the rules are way off target.

I am Fred my main fight is to end the War on US (drugs) and stop putting good people in jail for thinking they have freedom of choice. It is a little off subject for me but it is part of my plan. If you are aware and read you know our so-called leaders senate/house lie to us and waste our money and vote with the corporations that pay them through PACs (political action committees) having said that here is my plan. To believe in my plan you should first watch the documentary SICKO by Roger Moore. You will see how the Canadians love their system they can go to any doctor and pay nothing it is high quality universal health care. DO NOT believe the lies our leaders will tell you. Big money is paying our leaders house/senate through PACs to not have universal health care and it is the same reason as in the War on Drugs. Greed is the main motivator for both actions so do not listen to the lies see the movie and listen to the real people that have nothing to gain by lying about their system. They love it! My plan is to end the War on US (drugs) and save the money (estimated to be 100 billion a year) and the estimated 50 billion lost in tax income from sales of just Marijuana and pay for universal health care for all Americans. The estimated cost of universal health care is 70 billion so we would have 80 billion left over. So if you take the wrong legal drug you can go to the doctor and get help not thrown in jail to be raped and have you future life destroyed by our greedy out of control so called leaders house/senate. We will not conform to a War conceived of racism perpetuated by greed and supported by lies. The War on US (drugs) must end and get free health care for all at no extra cost. LEGALIZE*REGULATE*TAX quit putting our children, mothers, fathers, yes even grandparents in jail for exercising a constitutional right that was stolen 70 years ago!

First, this entire argument is nothing but assertion -- you claim that profits positively affect cost and quality of health care in the title, but provide no actual evidence in your article for this claim. The only support given is a single article, no citation given, which claims nonprofit hospitals charge more, which is not in itself evidence that profits are good for the system. (Since it's impossible to know what article you're referring to, there is no way to check the data the reporters used to make sure they're making the right comparisons and drawing the correct inferences; it's not even possible to verify that the WSJ article actually backs your position.)

But let's accept the unsupported statement that profits have a positive effect for a moment. Even granting that, this article undercuts its relevance to the larger discussion with this statement:

"Thus, there are a lot of profits still being made in the single-payer systems, and there are a lot of nonprofits in the U.S. system."

As near as I can tell (since this article does a poor job of relating to the broader discussion), the point being made is that our system of health care is good because it allows profits, so it positively affects health care. In the quote above, we see that a single-payer system also allows profits, so we should conclude that it also positively affects health care. In what way is this article supposed to support the 'no' side of the universal health care argument? If we accept everything written here unquestioningly, we still end up with no reason to come down on one side of the debate or the other.

"Indeed, The Wall Street Journal ran an article not long ago pointing out that some of the nonprofit hospitals charge significantly higher prices than for-profits."

Context? Why would that be? It is likely because non-profits have a social mission: to provide healthcare. Even to those not covered by insurance. You're proving the point of those in favour of this argument right there.

"Can I get high-quality care for a reasonable price? In other words, do patients get value for their health care dollars? "

But that's not how our system works. People don't shop around for their best healthcare dollar. Again, this isn't a pair of shoes. You don't go to the doctor looking for the cheapest one. That's... frightening. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr . _Nick_Riviera Even without the third-payer system, which I DO agree drives up the costs and drives down efficiency, having multiple, for-profit systems is the problem. Each hospital needs to balance its books, and when the uncovered are taken in (because health is a moral, not economic issue), that care bankrupts those who cannot afford it (causing tons of other social problems) and forces the hospitals to raise the rates for the rest of us.

It isn't working, and unfortunately, due to the Nick Rivera Effect (I just coined it, you can use it), healthcare is not a market-based entity. Socialised medicine does not force hospitals to balance their books in the same way.