[SK in CV]

[quote=bubba99]
I read your response, and I have to ask “did you ever take accounting or finance?’ and if you did, did you fail the course?.

So your wife is a health care provider with no embedded cost. You missed the point. Hospitals do have “big” capital costs. Physicians are not the big driver of health care costs. Hospitals, and equipment are.

Using your words “nonsensical”, do you really believe that an aspirin costs $40.00 – now that is nonsensical. Where do you think the cost comes from – the $15.00/hour janitor that cleans up? Or the $200,000/year doctor?. No it comes from capital and lease costs.

Is your first language english? or are your comments based on just being studid?[/quote]

As to accounting and finance, yes. Did quite well. Went on and got a masters degree. Spent most of the last 30 years working as a CPA, consultant (including medical financing consulting), and as an economist.

As to the costs….well, these are your words.

[quote=bubba99]
The expense is coming from huge amounts of embedded capital costs, the interest on those capital expenditures, and profit on those assets. Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) is the real driver of medical “Access” cost.

The access provider borrows from its huge cash flows to buy equipment and buildings from its non-regulated subsidiary, pays interest to the non-regulated sub, and we get stuck with double the “cost”. The bankers are robbing us in a more creative way.

[/quote]

And I was just pointing out that your assertion is false on its face. Some costs are associated with the things you noted. Of course an aspirin doesn’t cost $40. But that’s only a small piece of total medical costs.

Had you said “some” or even “a significant portion”, I probably wouldn’t have responded to that section of your comment. Exaggeration works fine in comedy, it has no place in rhetoric. (Nor does the ad hominem, for that matter.) The breadth, the absoluteness of your assertions render them meaningless. It ignores all costs related to salaries to medical service providers. It ignores R&D costs. It ignores administrative costs. It ignores medical insurance company profits.

Same goes for the assertion about the “access provider” (whatever that means). And the rest of that paragraph is not representative of any segment of the health care industry that I’m aware of.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bubba99]
I read your response, and I have to ask “did you ever take accounting or finance?’ and if you did, did you fail the course?.

So your wife is a health care provider with no embedded cost. You missed the point. Hospitals do have “big” capital costs. Physicians are not the big driver of health care costs. Hospitals, and equipment are.

Using your words “nonsensical”, do you really believe that an aspirin costs $40.00 – now that is nonsensical. Where do you think the cost comes from – the $15.00/hour janitor that cleans up? Or the $200,000/year doctor?. No it comes from capital and lease costs.

Is your first language english? or are your comments based on just being studid?[/quote]

As to accounting and finance, yes. Did quite well. Went on and got a masters degree. Spent most of the last 30 years working as a CPA, consultant (including medical financing consulting), and as an economist.

As to the costs….well, these are your words.

[quote=bubba99]
The expense is coming from huge amounts of embedded capital costs, the interest on those capital expenditures, and profit on those assets. Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) is the real driver of medical “Access” cost.

The access provider borrows from its huge cash flows to buy equipment and buildings from its non-regulated subsidiary, pays interest to the non-regulated sub, and we get stuck with double the “cost”. The bankers are robbing us in a more creative way.

[/quote]

And I was just pointing out that your assertion is false on its face. Some costs are associated with the things you noted. Of course an aspirin doesn’t cost $40. But that’s only a small piece of total medical costs.

Had you said “some” or even “a significant portion”, I probably wouldn’t have responded to that section of your comment. Exaggeration works fine in comedy, it has no place in rhetoric. (Nor does the ad hominem, for that matter.) The breadth, the absoluteness of your assertions render them meaningless. It ignores all costs related to salaries to medical service providers. It ignores R&D costs. It ignores administrative costs. It ignores medical insurance company profits.

Same goes for the assertion about the “access provider” (whatever that means). And the rest of that paragraph is not representative of any segment of the health care industry that I’m aware of.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bubba99]
I read your response, and I have to ask “did you ever take accounting or finance?’ and if you did, did you fail the course?.

So your wife is a health care provider with no embedded cost. You missed the point. Hospitals do have “big” capital costs. Physicians are not the big driver of health care costs. Hospitals, and equipment are.

Using your words “nonsensical”, do you really believe that an aspirin costs $40.00 – now that is nonsensical. Where do you think the cost comes from – the $15.00/hour janitor that cleans up? Or the $200,000/year doctor?. No it comes from capital and lease costs.

Is your first language english? or are your comments based on just being studid?[/quote]

As to accounting and finance, yes. Did quite well. Went on and got a masters degree. Spent most of the last 30 years working as a CPA, consultant (including medical financing consulting), and as an economist.

As to the costs….well, these are your words.

[quote=bubba99]
The expense is coming from huge amounts of embedded capital costs, the interest on those capital expenditures, and profit on those assets. Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) is the real driver of medical “Access” cost.

The access provider borrows from its huge cash flows to buy equipment and buildings from its non-regulated subsidiary, pays interest to the non-regulated sub, and we get stuck with double the “cost”. The bankers are robbing us in a more creative way.

[/quote]

And I was just pointing out that your assertion is false on its face. Some costs are associated with the things you noted. Of course an aspirin doesn’t cost $40. But that’s only a small piece of total medical costs.

Had you said “some” or even “a significant portion”, I probably wouldn’t have responded to that section of your comment. Exaggeration works fine in comedy, it has no place in rhetoric. (Nor does the ad hominem, for that matter.) The breadth, the absoluteness of your assertions render them meaningless. It ignores all costs related to salaries to medical service providers. It ignores R&D costs. It ignores administrative costs. It ignores medical insurance company profits.

Same goes for the assertion about the “access provider” (whatever that means). And the rest of that paragraph is not representative of any segment of the health care industry that I’m aware of.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bubba99]
I read your response, and I have to ask “did you ever take accounting or finance?’ and if you did, did you fail the course?.

So your wife is a health care provider with no embedded cost. You missed the point. Hospitals do have “big” capital costs. Physicians are not the big driver of health care costs. Hospitals, and equipment are.

Using your words “nonsensical”, do you really believe that an aspirin costs $40.00 – now that is nonsensical. Where do you think the cost comes from – the $15.00/hour janitor that cleans up? Or the $200,000/year doctor?. No it comes from capital and lease costs.

Is your first language english? or are your comments based on just being studid?[/quote]

As to accounting and finance, yes. Did quite well. Went on and got a masters degree. Spent most of the last 30 years working as a CPA, consultant (including medical financing consulting), and as an economist.

As to the costs….well, these are your words.

[quote=bubba99]
The expense is coming from huge amounts of embedded capital costs, the interest on those capital expenditures, and profit on those assets. Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) is the real driver of medical “Access” cost.

The access provider borrows from its huge cash flows to buy equipment and buildings from its non-regulated subsidiary, pays interest to the non-regulated sub, and we get stuck with double the “cost”. The bankers are robbing us in a more creative way.

[/quote]

And I was just pointing out that your assertion is false on its face. Some costs are associated with the things you noted. Of course an aspirin doesn’t cost $40. But that’s only a small piece of total medical costs.

Had you said “some” or even “a significant portion”, I probably wouldn’t have responded to that section of your comment. Exaggeration works fine in comedy, it has no place in rhetoric. (Nor does the ad hominem, for that matter.) The breadth, the absoluteness of your assertions render them meaningless. It ignores all costs related to salaries to medical service providers. It ignores R&D costs. It ignores administrative costs. It ignores medical insurance company profits.

Same goes for the assertion about the “access provider” (whatever that means). And the rest of that paragraph is not representative of any segment of the health care industry that I’m aware of.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bubba99]Health insurance is a mis-nomer. Fire insurance is “insurance”, health care is not. In your neighborhood, most have fire insurance, and few if any will actually place a claim for a fire – this is the definition of insurance.

Health care is “access”. Almost everyone in a healthcare pool will require some “health care” during the premium period. The penality for not having access is rates 50% to 100% higher for direct pay medical care.

The expense is coming from huge amounts of embedded capital costs, the interest on those capital expenditures, and profit on those assets. Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) is the real driver of medical “Access” cost.

The access provider borrows from its huge cash flows to buy equipment and buildings from its non-regulated subsidiary, pays interest to the non-regulated sub, and we get stuck with double the “cost”. The bankers are robbing us in a more creative way.

A non-profit hospital does not mean that no one makes money, only that the expenses equal the huge amounts of revenue. The more capital, the more non-profit![/quote]

This is nonsense. Beginning with the very first sentence.

Health insurance is insurance. It is built on a model significantly different than life or professional liability or auto insurance. It is still insurance.

Health care is health care. Access is access. One is dependent on the other. That does not make them the same thing.

The expense comes from a huge variety of sources. My wife is a health care provider. She has no embedded costs. No capital costs. No interest. Her insurance is under $500 a year. For most physicians, those costs are only small price drivers. Embedded costs, capital costs, interest and insurance are only some of the costs of providing health care. Some providers and some health care costs are affected by those things. As others are affected by huge research costs. And some operate with virtually no costs at all.

A non-profit hospital does not mean that expenses equal the huge amount of revenue. That is both an absurd and non-sensical assertion. Sometimes they will make money, sometimes lose. And while non-profit hospitals are subject to hundreds, thousands of regulations, many of them identical to for-profit facilities, the main distinction between for profit and non-profit, is that non-profit does not have owners that will ever reap financial benefit from profit. There are no shareholders.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bubba99]Health insurance is a mis-nomer. Fire insurance is “insurance”, health care is not. In your neighborhood, most have fire insurance, and few if any will actually place a claim for a fire – this is the definition of insurance.

Health care is “access”. Almost everyone in a healthcare pool will require some “health care” during the premium period. The penality for not having access is rates 50% to 100% higher for direct pay medical care.

The expense is coming from huge amounts of embedded capital costs, the interest on those capital expenditures, and profit on those assets. Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) is the real driver of medical “Access” cost.

The access provider borrows from its huge cash flows to buy equipment and buildings from its non-regulated subsidiary, pays interest to the non-regulated sub, and we get stuck with double the “cost”. The bankers are robbing us in a more creative way.

A non-profit hospital does not mean that no one makes money, only that the expenses equal the huge amounts of revenue. The more capital, the more non-profit![/quote]

This is nonsense. Beginning with the very first sentence.

Health insurance is insurance. It is built on a model significantly different than life or professional liability or auto insurance. It is still insurance.

Health care is health care. Access is access. One is dependent on the other. That does not make them the same thing.

The expense comes from a huge variety of sources. My wife is a health care provider. She has no embedded costs. No capital costs. No interest. Her insurance is under $500 a year. For most physicians, those costs are only small price drivers. Embedded costs, capital costs, interest and insurance are only some of the costs of providing health care. Some providers and some health care costs are affected by those things. As others are affected by huge research costs. And some operate with virtually no costs at all.

A non-profit hospital does not mean that expenses equal the huge amount of revenue. That is both an absurd and non-sensical assertion. Sometimes they will make money, sometimes lose. And while non-profit hospitals are subject to hundreds, thousands of regulations, many of them identical to for-profit facilities, the main distinction between for profit and non-profit, is that non-profit does not have owners that will ever reap financial benefit from profit. There are no shareholders.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bubba99]Health insurance is a mis-nomer. Fire insurance is “insurance”, health care is not. In your neighborhood, most have fire insurance, and few if any will actually place a claim for a fire – this is the definition of insurance.

Health care is “access”. Almost everyone in a healthcare pool will require some “health care” during the premium period. The penality for not having access is rates 50% to 100% higher for direct pay medical care.

The expense is coming from huge amounts of embedded capital costs, the interest on those capital expenditures, and profit on those assets. Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) is the real driver of medical “Access” cost.

The access provider borrows from its huge cash flows to buy equipment and buildings from its non-regulated subsidiary, pays interest to the non-regulated sub, and we get stuck with double the “cost”. The bankers are robbing us in a more creative way.

A non-profit hospital does not mean that no one makes money, only that the expenses equal the huge amounts of revenue. The more capital, the more non-profit![/quote]

This is nonsense. Beginning with the very first sentence.

Health insurance is insurance. It is built on a model significantly different than life or professional liability or auto insurance. It is still insurance.

Health care is health care. Access is access. One is dependent on the other. That does not make them the same thing.

The expense comes from a huge variety of sources. My wife is a health care provider. She has no embedded costs. No capital costs. No interest. Her insurance is under $500 a year. For most physicians, those costs are only small price drivers. Embedded costs, capital costs, interest and insurance are only some of the costs of providing health care. Some providers and some health care costs are affected by those things. As others are affected by huge research costs. And some operate with virtually no costs at all.

A non-profit hospital does not mean that expenses equal the huge amount of revenue. That is both an absurd and non-sensical assertion. Sometimes they will make money, sometimes lose. And while non-profit hospitals are subject to hundreds, thousands of regulations, many of them identical to for-profit facilities, the main distinction between for profit and non-profit, is that non-profit does not have owners that will ever reap financial benefit from profit. There are no shareholders.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bubba99]Health insurance is a mis-nomer. Fire insurance is “insurance”, health care is not. In your neighborhood, most have fire insurance, and few if any will actually place a claim for a fire – this is the definition of insurance.

Health care is “access”. Almost everyone in a healthcare pool will require some “health care” during the premium period. The penality for not having access is rates 50% to 100% higher for direct pay medical care.

The expense is coming from huge amounts of embedded capital costs, the interest on those capital expenditures, and profit on those assets. Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) is the real driver of medical “Access” cost.

The access provider borrows from its huge cash flows to buy equipment and buildings from its non-regulated subsidiary, pays interest to the non-regulated sub, and we get stuck with double the “cost”. The bankers are robbing us in a more creative way.

A non-profit hospital does not mean that no one makes money, only that the expenses equal the huge amounts of revenue. The more capital, the more non-profit![/quote]

This is nonsense. Beginning with the very first sentence.

Health insurance is insurance. It is built on a model significantly different than life or professional liability or auto insurance. It is still insurance.

Health care is health care. Access is access. One is dependent on the other. That does not make them the same thing.

The expense comes from a huge variety of sources. My wife is a health care provider. She has no embedded costs. No capital costs. No interest. Her insurance is under $500 a year. For most physicians, those costs are only small price drivers. Embedded costs, capital costs, interest and insurance are only some of the costs of providing health care. Some providers and some health care costs are affected by those things. As others are affected by huge research costs. And some operate with virtually no costs at all.

A non-profit hospital does not mean that expenses equal the huge amount of revenue. That is both an absurd and non-sensical assertion. Sometimes they will make money, sometimes lose. And while non-profit hospitals are subject to hundreds, thousands of regulations, many of them identical to for-profit facilities, the main distinction between for profit and non-profit, is that non-profit does not have owners that will ever reap financial benefit from profit. There are no shareholders.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bubba99]Health insurance is a mis-nomer. Fire insurance is “insurance”, health care is not. In your neighborhood, most have fire insurance, and few if any will actually place a claim for a fire – this is the definition of insurance.

Health care is “access”. Almost everyone in a healthcare pool will require some “health care” during the premium period. The penality for not having access is rates 50% to 100% higher for direct pay medical care.

The expense is coming from huge amounts of embedded capital costs, the interest on those capital expenditures, and profit on those assets. Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) is the real driver of medical “Access” cost.

The access provider borrows from its huge cash flows to buy equipment and buildings from its non-regulated subsidiary, pays interest to the non-regulated sub, and we get stuck with double the “cost”. The bankers are robbing us in a more creative way.

A non-profit hospital does not mean that no one makes money, only that the expenses equal the huge amounts of revenue. The more capital, the more non-profit![/quote]

This is nonsense. Beginning with the very first sentence.

Health insurance is insurance. It is built on a model significantly different than life or professional liability or auto insurance. It is still insurance.

Health care is health care. Access is access. One is dependent on the other. That does not make them the same thing.

The expense comes from a huge variety of sources. My wife is a health care provider. She has no embedded costs. No capital costs. No interest. Her insurance is under $500 a year. For most physicians, those costs are only small price drivers. Embedded costs, capital costs, interest and insurance are only some of the costs of providing health care. Some providers and some health care costs are affected by those things. As others are affected by huge research costs. And some operate with virtually no costs at all.

A non-profit hospital does not mean that expenses equal the huge amount of revenue. That is both an absurd and non-sensical assertion. Sometimes they will make money, sometimes lose. And while non-profit hospitals are subject to hundreds, thousands of regulations, many of them identical to for-profit facilities, the main distinction between for profit and non-profit, is that non-profit does not have owners that will ever reap financial benefit from profit. There are no shareholders.

[SK in CV]

[quote=faterikcartman][quote=Rustico] Check under the hood of your cars often, they will nest in there for warmth and travel all over town too…chewing up your wiring and insulation and stuff.[/quote]

Happened to me twice in our Phaeton (little F-ers love that car) at almost $1,500 a pop.[/quote]

Happened to me just last year. About $600 of damage. Car insurance covered it. Comprehensive. Low deductible.

[SK in CV]

[quote=faterikcartman][quote=Rustico] Check under the hood of your cars often, they will nest in there for warmth and travel all over town too…chewing up your wiring and insulation and stuff.[/quote]

Happened to me twice in our Phaeton (little F-ers love that car) at almost $1,500 a pop.[/quote]

Happened to me just last year. About $600 of damage. Car insurance covered it. Comprehensive. Low deductible.

[SK in CV]

[quote=faterikcartman][quote=Rustico] Check under the hood of your cars often, they will nest in there for warmth and travel all over town too…chewing up your wiring and insulation and stuff.[/quote]

Happened to me twice in our Phaeton (little F-ers love that car) at almost $1,500 a pop.[/quote]

Happened to me just last year. About $600 of damage. Car insurance covered it. Comprehensive. Low deductible.

[SK in CV]

[quote=faterikcartman][quote=Rustico] Check under the hood of your cars often, they will nest in there for warmth and travel all over town too…chewing up your wiring and insulation and stuff.[/quote]

Happened to me twice in our Phaeton (little F-ers love that car) at almost $1,500 a pop.[/quote]

Happened to me just last year. About $600 of damage. Car insurance covered it. Comprehensive. Low deductible.

[SK in CV]

[quote=faterikcartman][quote=Rustico] Check under the hood of your cars often, they will nest in there for warmth and travel all over town too…chewing up your wiring and insulation and stuff.[/quote]

Happened to me twice in our Phaeton (little F-ers love that car) at almost $1,500 a pop.[/quote]

Happened to me just last year. About $600 of damage. Car insurance covered it. Comprehensive. Low deductible.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=briansd1]My dad tells me that in the 1950s they didn’t eat the large steaks that we eat now. There were no double-doubles and the Big Mac was not yet invented.[/quote]

Uh-uh! Same menu since 1948!

Perhaps the double-double should be the standard measure for inflation?[/quote]

I was just thinking about that. I can’t tell you what a double-double cost back then, but I can tell you that a Big Mac meal cost me a buck in 1973, when I was in high school. Don’t eat McDonals very often these days, but I think the last time I had a big mac meal it was just under $7.00. And I’m pretty sure they were bigger 38 years ago. I think maybe the drinks and fries are bigger now.

That’s 600% inflation. According to an inflation calculator i found online, the increase in CPI over that same period 408.65%

[Author]

Posts