Login
04-04-2012, 01:19 AM | #1 |
Major
![]() 31
Rep 1,097
Posts |
Obamacare pt 2
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? |
04-04-2012, 12:02 PM | #2 |
Major
![]() 120
Rep 1,241
Posts
Drives: E60 M5 & E71 X6M
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: At the gas station
|
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...
__________________
Cars I've owned '76 Chevelle 350 RIP '82 Monte Carlo 350 RIP '82 Mustang 302 RIP '88 Honda CRX RIP '88 Olds Toronado sold '94 Toyota Tercel sold '99 Acura TL sold 2002 Porsche 911 sold 2003 E46 M3 Blk/gr 2006 MB S430 sold Current: 2008 Infiniti QX56 & 2008 E60 M5
![]() |
Appreciate
0
|
04-04-2012, 11:27 PM | #3 | |
Major
![]() 31
Rep 1,097
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-07-2012, 05:17 PM | #4 | |
Dishonorably discharged
7
Rep 140
Posts |
Quote:
Yes, I work at a nfp hospital, and I know hundreds of physicians, entrepreneurs and otherwise. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-08-2012, 03:34 AM | #5 | |
Major
![]() 31
Rep 1,097
Posts |
Quote:
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.... |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-08-2012, 02:20 PM | #6 |
Sixties Drag Racer
![]() 29
Rep 409
Posts |
Webster Definition of BUSINESS
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
__________________
Mspeasl - Central Illinois - USA :
![]() My Garage: 2011 - Cashmere Silver Metallic BMW, 528i (Delivered 17 January 2011) 2008 - Radiant Red Toyota, M6 'X-Runner' (Delivered 15 November 2007) 1957 - Chevrolet Bel Air 2dr Coupe' Drag Car (2nd Owner since 1964) 1947 - Chevrolet Sport Master Coupe' Street Rod (2nd Owner since 1974) |
Appreciate
0
|
04-08-2012, 03:03 PM | #7 | |
Major
![]() 31
Rep 1,097
Posts |
Quote:
![]() |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-11-2012, 07:22 PM | #8 |
Lieutenant
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() -31
Rep 522
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-11-2012, 08:42 PM | #9 | |
Lieutenant
![]() ![]() ![]() 91
Rep 418
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-11-2012, 10:13 PM | #10 | |
Major
![]() 31
Rep 1,097
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|