[txz4]

The other thread sort of devolved so here we go again for round 2.

Pulled this quote from an AP article:

"The case before the appeals court was brought in part by a spine and joint hospital in East Texas that is challenging the constitutionality of a portion of the health care law that restricts physician-owned hospitals from expanding or building new facilities."

Am i the only one who finds this a little bit odd? Also, thoughts or bets on the ruling of whether the mandate is constitutional?

[ideliver]

Plain and simple...physician owned hospitals provide better care for less money...the docs have some "skin in the game"

That being said...if they paid docs for actually taking care of patients, they wouldn't be in the business of owning hospitals...

Full disclosure...i do not have any ownership positition of any for profit hospital...

[txz4]

Originally Posted by ideliver

Plain and simple...physician owned hospitals provide better care for less money...the docs have some "skin in the game"

That being said...if they paid docs for actually taking care of patients, they wouldn't be in the business of owning hospitals...

Full disclosure...i do not have any ownership positition of any for profit hospital...

I get the feeling they arent interested in the quality of care so much as the quantity of care. Sort of an extremely poor attempt at a utilitarian belief system in regards to health care.

[Sidney]

Originally Posted by ideliver

Plain and simple...physician owned hospitals provide better care for less money...the docs have some "skin in the game"

That being said...if they paid docs for actually taking care of patients, they wouldn't be in the business of owning hospitals...

Full disclosure...i do not have any ownership positition of any for profit hospital...

I call BS where's your proof? Doctors own hospitals to make money. Period. I don't begrudge them the opportunity to make a profit and compete. But quality sure aint what motivates them. If they're so interested in improving quality of care I'm sure they'll open up ERs and all of their services to Medicaid patients and the uninsured.

Yes, I work at a nfp hospital, and I know hundreds of physicians, entrepreneurs and otherwise.

[txz4]

Originally Posted by Sidney

I call BS where's your proof? Doctors own hospitals to make money. Period. I don't begrudge them the opportunity to make a profit and compete. But quality sure aint what motivates them. If they're so interested in improving quality of care I'm sure they'll open up ERs and all of their services to Medicaid patients and the uninsured.

Yes, I work at a nfp hospital, and I know hundreds of physicians, entrepreneurs and otherwise.

He never said they were in the business to provide better quality vs profit, quality is simply a symptom of making a profit, according to ideliver. Quality isnt what motivates anyone worth his or her salt in business, profit (monetary and non-monetary) does. Like i said before, quality is a symptom. When quality starts hitting SEC filings then we can worry about it in terms of motivation.

My business delivers quality service at a fair price only because it will gain us more profit (again, monetarily and non monetarily) that way, if people decided they wanted inferior services for the same price there would be a line of companies all too happy to oblige. Everything outside of profit (in for profit business) is a symptom of profit, nothing more....

[mspeasl]

Webster Definition of BUSINESS

a : a usually commercial or mercantile activity engaged in as a means of livelihood : trade, line <in the restaurant business >

b : a commercial or sometimes an industrial enterprise; also : such enterprises <the business district>

c : dealings or transactions especially of an economic nature : patronage <took their business elsewhere>

In layman terms. To make money for the owners or investors

[txz4]

Originally Posted by mspeasl

Webster Definition of BUSINESS

a : a usually commercial or mercantile activity engaged in as a means of livelihood : trade, line <in the restaurant business >

b : a commercial or sometimes an industrial enterprise; also : such enterprises <the business district>

c : dealings or transactions especially of an economic nature : patronage <took their business elsewhere>

In layman terms. To make money for the owners or investors

According to my business ethics teacher back in college, its to employ others

[OldArmy]

Originally Posted by txz4

According to my business ethics teacher back in college, its to employ others

Did he/she really say that? Was there an explanation rendered because that sounds counter to common sense?

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by OldArmy

Did he/she really say that? Was there an explanation rendered because that sounds counter to common sense?

That certainly does not align with any definition I have heard, from Economics courses I've taken at a University level.

Sure, you can start your own "for-profit" company, and if you choose, you can make decisions that serve maximizing employment of others over profit, as long as you are the sole shareholder. As long as you at least break even, or are willing to inject more cash to make up any difference, you can continue to do that indefinitely.

Once you get others who also have skin in that game, they better be on the same page as you, cause if they are not, then the law will historically favor them in disputes.

For publicly traded companies, there are many examples out there of shareholder suing the board of directors for failing to maximize shareholder value (ie: keeping more employed at the expense of getting that extra dollar of profit). In many documented examples, the shareholders won. The law cares nothing of "morals", and clearly sees that companies exist to make money for their owners, not provide employment for others. If you can do both, peace, but if not, the almighty dollar must be placed above keeping others employed, at least legally speaking.

I'm surprised a college teacher would say that, despite the legal evidence to the contrary. No different than a math teacher telling you that its OK to round Pi down to 3.

[txz4]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

That certainly does not align with any definition I have heard, from Economics courses I've taken at a University level.

Sure, you can start your own "for-profit" company, and if you choose, you can make decisions that serve maximizing employment of others over profit, as long as you are the sole shareholder. As long as you at least break even, or are willing to inject more cash to make up any difference, you can continue to do that indefinitely.

Once you get others who also have skin in that game, they better be on the same page as you, cause if they are not, then the law will historically favor them in disputes.

For publicly traded companies, there are many examples out there of shareholder suing the board of directors for failing to maximize shareholder value (ie: keeping more employed at the expense of getting that extra dollar of profit). In many documented examples, the shareholders won. The law cares nothing of "morals", and clearly sees that companies exist to make money for their owners, not provide employment for others. If you can do both, peace, but if not, the almighty dollar must be placed above keeping others employed, at least legally speaking.

I'm surprised a college teacher would say that, despite the legal evidence to the contrary. No different than a math teacher telling you that its OK to round Pi down to 3.

I actually called the teacher out in class, i even gave examples. Afterwards he decided it was best not to have me speak in class anymore and informed me in front of the class that i "wasn't allowed to speak in class anymore". If you check his rate my professor, he has many complaints against him. He wore it as a badge of honor that in the reviews some called him a Marxist...