 |
| |
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
It most certainly is not. CostOfProduction depends on the market situation, which is dramatically different across both situations. |
It should be simple for someone like you with a computer background. You define a variable. Whatever that variable is, while unchanged, remains unchanged... imagine that. My use of CostOfProduction, without modifiying CostOfProduction between uses, obviously means CostOfProduction remains the same between equations. Yet you disagree that it is the same thing in my equation.
Now, I think what you were trying to say is not that "[CostOfProduction] most certainly is not [the same across both equations]", but rather that "CostOfProduction should not be used in both equations without modification to accurately model all factors involved."
I would agree with that statement, and as I have noted (and you have failed to acknowlege), the intent of my statement was not to model every factor, but to make a specific reference to the direct link between profit margin and price.
Do you suggest that profit margin and price are not linked?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Why? It doesn't matter where the money's coming from, it just matters how much money they each spend (including all sources of expenditures). |
Yes, it does.
If a non-profit or state owned entity is assured to be there tomorrow and next year due to stipends from the public purse, they will behave in different ways than would a private enterprise which has to constantly justify it's continued operations to either a bank or shareholders, or both. So, a private enterprise hospital might have to invest heavily in marketing and advertising, which is something a state-suckling entity would not do much of at all. Bang, up go your costs and down goes your 'efficiency'.
I'm not an expert on hospital administration, but I'd bet my left nut that adminstrative expenses could also be lessened by pooling some functions among the various publically funded hospitals in a region, rather than having each fend for itself. Of course, that might also be offset if there were large combines of privately run facilities in the same geographical area, but if not... Bang, up go your costs and down goes your 'efficiency'.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Harry Tuttle
|
 |
of the Hoople Heads
Mar 2003
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
Could you elaborate on that, Harry? You've actually been in the middle, so I'd like to know why you think that $ per day for a bed couldn't be profitable. It is for hotels, but they do it by the night. |
Well it's not the amount charged for a room per say. All hospitals make some money off of overnight room stays. The problem is that a lot of the cost involved with the room stays is in the form of nurses on call, laundry, medical supplies, etc... Hotels make a profit because they have low overhead, don't really provide much in the way of ample service for a room besides the usual cleaning, and have a small staff. Hospitals of course demand steriliziation and a large amount of trained professionals so the costs per room are higher.
As for the procedures I'll point out a nice Harvard Business school example I read while getting my MBA. There is a for-profit facility/hospital (can't recall where, probably Maine or something) that focused exclusively on hernia operations. The facility had a new way of repairing the torn tissue that allowed a quicker recovery period for the patient. Because the profit from each patient consisted predominantly of the operation itself and the majority of the costs involved were from overnight stays, the facility simply had a policy of limiting stays to one night. Behold, they make a fortune.
In that example they focused exclusively on where their profit lies, the operation itself. Now, in a traditional hospital that is non-exclusive in its procedures (ER, basic surgeries like gall bladder removal, broken legs) the revenue generated is low and the costs are high. The procedures are numerous, but the profit margin for each procedure is not.
Anyways, what I'm trying to say is, that because for-profits are not privy to the benefits that a non-profit would enjoy they cannot afford to offer the traditional array of hospital services and expect to remain profitable much less solvent. Specialization and niche marketization seem to be the only key to for-profits to stay in business.
So when I say that a 250+ bed traditional for-profit hospital cannot thrive it's because there is to much overhead - just from traditional procedures and hospital stays alone.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
I get what you're saying. You're just ignoring what I am saying and going off on your own halfwitted guesses as to my intent instead of actually listening to what I stated it was. |
The reason being I don't care about your intent, because it doesn't matter. I've said this twice now. 
If it was your intent to make a point, you failed miserably.
If it was your intent to make a bullshit post, you succeeded.
Why? I've no idea, nor do I really care. Just saying how it is...
quote:
I did not make the statement that CostOfProduction was the same across all hospitals. Only that it was the same in a given hospital compared to itself. You saying CostOfProduction != CostOfProduction because you don't understand the context.
I assumed that the reader would be intelligent enough to understand the use of variables, which seems to have alluded you. |
Just how much math have you actually done? It's all about the context.
You were trying to make the point that non-profit organizations are somehow more efficient. You did it by posting two equations with parallel structure, and it's very clear that the implication was the one with the variable plus another variable is higher than the one with the originally variable only.
Perhaps you were underestimating the intelligence of the reader, because the reader called you on the ridiculousness of the statement, something you cannot even fathom yet...
Your statement was this:
quote:
CostOfProduction = Price1
CostOfProduction + Profit = Price2 |
There is no relevance, at all, to this debate unless it is assumed CostOfProduction is the same. And when this is the case, it is obviously false. When it is not the case, it makes as much sense as saying:
quote:
Exactly Spiffor!
3 = 3
1 + 1 = 2 |
Then you try to overcomplicate things in an attempt to save face, and when that backfires you just back out...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:36
|
|
As a contrast to the opening post which seems to show that public healthcare has all the answers.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...086696932080_14
quote:
Medicare goes on trial in Supreme Court case
CTV.ca News Staff
The Supreme Court is hearing a case that could have significant implications for universal medicare. A Quebec doctor and a patient are arguing their rights are violated by a law against queue-jumping.
George Zeliotis spent more than a year waiting for a hip replacement in 1997. He says he should have had the right to pay for the surgery himself. So, he's brought his fight to the Supreme Court, along with another man, Dr. Jacques Chaoulli.
It's illegal in Canada to pay for surgery that's covered by medicare. Chaoulli and Zeliotis say that months spent waiting for surgery amounts to a violation of the constitutional right to receive treatment within a reasonable time.
They argue that patients should have a right to pay for certain services from private doctors. Doing so, they say, would pose no threat to the public health-care system.
They want the court to overturn portions of the Quebec Health Insurance Act and Quebec Hospital Insurance Act that prohibit payments for medically necessary services.
The argument has divided the medical community in a debate over the effectiveness and implications of a parallel private system. Advocates contend private services would take advantage of existing capacity in the medical system.
But critics say it would further restrict access for those who can't afford to pay. They say if the court rules in favour of Chaoulli and Zeliotis, Canada would be forced into two-tier health care. They want the current system fixed, not scrapped.
As the case began in Ottawa on Tuesday, protesters on both sides of the argument gathered outside the Supreme Court to register views. Canadian Health Coalition lawyer Martha Jackman was one of those on hand to say the Supreme Court case is no way to cure what ails medicare.
"We agree the publicly funded health care system has problems," Jackman told CTV News. "But lets fix it. The remedy they're suggesting is like euthanizing a patient who has the flu."
Two years ago, the Quebec Superior Court ruled that the provincial law's intention was to prevent discrimination based on ability to pay. They said that was in line with the Charter of Rights.
In a decision last year, the Quebec Court of Appeal also dismissed Chaoulli and Zeliotis' challenge to the provincial law.
The Supreme Court could allow the existing law to stand, strike it down, or order the government to find another cure, such as injecting more money to reduce wait lists.
A ruling isn't expected until this fall. |
Emphasis added.
I am told that people in need of hip replacements can be in significant pain. So much so that a woman paid $30,000 to go to the States to have her's done in 3 weeks instead of the 6 months she was told to weait in BC. [She was in a related spot that was in the news on this last night, but does not appear in the on line version of the SCoC case.]
Why do we Canadians tolerate what is being done in our names in the name of health? The italicised bit is standard fare. Hysterics is the correct word, I believe. We are led to believe that the alternative to the ONLY 100% public system in the G7 is the complete destruction of health care for the masses.
Canadians should not have to wait for over a year to get a needed procedure. Americans should not face the prospect of no coverage and being cast adrift. The answer is in neither of the systems as they exist today in Canada and the US.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Well it's not the amount charged for a room per say. All hospitals make some money off of overnight room stays. The problem is that a lot of the cost involved with the room stays is in the form of nurses on call, laundry, medical supplies, etc... Hotels make a profit because they have low overhead, don't really provide much in the way of ample service for a room besides the usual cleaning, and have a small staff. Hospitals of course demand steriliziation and a large amount of trained professionals so the costs per room are higher.
As for the procedures I'll point out a nice Harvard Business school example I read while getting my MBA. There is a for-profit facility/hospital (can't recall where, probably Maine or something) that focused exclusively on hernia operations. The facility had a new way of repairing the torn tissue that allowed a quicker recovery period for the patient. Because the profit from each patient consisted predominantly of the operation itself and the majority of the costs involved were from overnight stays, the facility simply had a policy of limiting stays to one night. Behold, they make a fortune.
In that example they focused exclusively on where their profit lies, the operation itself. Now, in a traditional hospital that is non-exclusive in its procedures (ER, basic surgeries like gall bladder removal, broken legs) the revenue generated is low and the costs are high. The procedures are numerous, but the profit margin for each procedure is not.
Anyways, what I'm trying to say is, that because for-profits are not privy to the benefits that a non-profit would enjoy they cannot afford to offer the traditional array of hospital services and expect to remain profitable much less solvent. Specialization and niche marketization seem to be the only key to for-profits to stay in business.
So when I say that a 250+ bed traditional for-profit hospital cannot thrive it's because there is to much overhead - just from traditional procedures and hospital stays alone. |
Couldn't need for profit from procedures be reduced by rates for stays per day being profitable as well? What would prevent that?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-06-2004 06:53
|