Rather than having uncle sam take over and getting "universal" coverage, what would happen if we turned all of the pharmaceuticals and hospitals into non-profits? We would buy out the investors (which is really kind of sick, people have to pay for health, and someone else receives it as part of their investment portfolio.) That way the hospitals and pharmaceuticals could focus all of their profits on research and advancements. That way money for new hospitals and equipment would be more readily available, and new drugs could be sold for less because they don't have to pay out to investors.
Just curious. It makes sense to me, but I am no economist. Please no stupid answers like "Universal is the only way to do it" because I will then know you are a commie and disreguard your intelligence.....
Additional Details
23 hours ago
By "Sick", I meant that in order to pay hospital bills and medicine, people sometimes go without food or heat in the winter. To be making a profit off of that is kind of sick. It would be kind of like having the city making a killing off of water because where else are you going to get water? You need it, and there is no point in making a profit off of it because governments are supposed to be non-profits...
23 hours ago
You do need to pay for the services provided to you, but to have the hospital then turn around and pay out to an investor is kind of wrong. I think the Mayo clinic in Minnesota is non-profit and they are one of the best facilities in the world. They get paid (boy do they get paid) but rather than paying out to shareholders, they reinvest the money in new facilities. I think... I could be wrong, but I remember that from my business classes....
2007-03-06
03:15:07
·
1 answers
·
asked by
Brian I
3