Universal Healthcare

brian shapiro said:

No I'm not speaking of an ideal situation, I know businesses are never perfect, I saw Manip as dismissing customers as part of the equation to make private business sound worse than it is. Are you going to go that route and say customers don't matter to businesses?

Now, you're just twisting words. What I'm saying is that health provision shouldn't be left to companies whose first priority is to make money. Other businesses don't come into it. I'm perfectly happy to buy my flatscreen TV from a private company because it isn't critical to my well-being. I'm happy to buy my computer from a private company because if I don't doesn't work, then I can get another one and keep going without being financially ruined. I don't mind buying my toaster from a private company because I don't really care if it stops browning bread as I get older and more likely to cost more to keep alive. 

But since you want to expand this argument out to all companies, then I think AndyC's link really says it all:

The Exploding Ford Pinto said:

One of the tools that Ford used to argue for the delay was a "cost-benefit analysis" of altering the fuel tanks. According to Ford's estimates, the unsafe tanks would cause 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, and 2,100 burned vehicles each year. It calculated that it would have to pay $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, and $700 per vehicle, for a total of $49.5 million. However, the cost of saving lives and injuries ran even higher: alterations would cost $11 per car or truck, which added up to $137 million per year. Essentially, Ford argued before the government that it would be cheaper just to let their customers burn!

So fine, you just carry on believing that private companies have your health as their top priority.

brian shapiro said:

Do you idealize government run care?

Are you only happy with a health system you can sue?

brian shapiro said:

And are you really saying it doesn't matter whether an organization is for-profit or non-profit?

Many health providers in the UK are also run as a non-profit and they have just as many complaints. I speak from personal experience on this particular point too. Non-profit does not mean the company doesn't want to make money. What it means is that it's designation allows it certain tax-breaks as it makes a 'surplus' not a 'profit.'  It still has directors and staff to pay, and will still have to cut back when times are bad. You seem to be mistaking a 'non-profit' for a 'charity.'

I have read back through all Manip's posts, and I cannot find one in which he implied customers are not important to business. What he has said is that private business shouldn't be trusted to provide critical health care; that is entirely different. To be honest, I have no problem with private health insurance, but not having a universal healthcare system in place as well...

brian shapiro said:

So, in your opinion the only difference in a non-profit is terminology?

Okay, here's a definition

gaebler.com said:

After all, the tax incentives of nonprofit incorporation seem like they are too good to be true. But there's more to a nonprofit than tax incentives. Are you prepared to deal with everything a nonprofit has to offer To be fair, nonprofit and for-profit organizations actually do have a lot in common. Both types of organizations attract entrepreneurially-minded individuals focused on maximizing income, minimizing expenses, and reaching their goals.

Sounds vaguely familiar, but here's where I have the problem:

gaebler.com said:

Something else to consider is the fact that the money a nonprofit earns through fundraising and other activities can only be used to advance the organization's stated mission. Although these activities can include administrative expenses and salaries, the limitations that apply to nonprofit expenditures are much stricter than the limitations placed on their for-profit peers. In the same way, any profit the organization earns must go back into the organization. Unlike a for-profit venture, profits cannot be distributed to individuals within the organization since individuals cannot claim an ownership stake in a nonprofit entity. For a startup entrepreneur, this means that nonprofit status will prohibit you from reaping profits beyond a reasonable salary and benefits package.

To begin with, what do you class as a 'reasonable salary' for a company that is raking in millions a year in premiums? And how come so many of these benefit packages include a whopping great pension scheme? 

brian shapiro said:

Well my point to Manip was that the imperative of a business isn't any more to a share holder than to a customer, a business has to balance both of those.

Well, I still don't think that is what he was driving at, but let's move on. I take your point about investor speculation, but that doesn't change the fact that the motives of those involved could be driven by greed, which was my original point. To illustrate the difference between intention and action, you only have to look at the collapse of MG.

Four men bought the company for £10 and said they would save it. 

Five years later, the company collapsed with the loss of 6500 jobs, debts of £1bn, and the same four men walked away with £42 million between them. No case will be brought against them because they didn't break the law. Now how would being a non-profit organisation saved a company with those blokes in charge?

And when a company goes bust, how do the customers fair when it comes to getting what they're entitled to, in relation to the directors, major shareholders and suppliers?

Oddly enough, the ISPs use a similar model when they decide to get rid of customers. They like to cream off the high usage customers because they cost more to service.

Don't get me started on the banks