That's where they get the vast majority of their revenue, and they are profitable.
That sounds superficially reasonable, but I'm not so sure it's valid. Medical establishments have profit centers. It's the profit centers that cover losses incurred elsewhere.
A few weeks ago I found myself in an ambulance. Spent a night in the hospital. In the course of that, they did a heart sonogram. I spent an hour in a smallish room in a hospital in an upscale area with a skilled technician and a brand new piece of snazzy equipment--I was its second patient. Out of sight was a doctor in another room in that same building who read the results and wrote a report. The bill was $940. The payment was $69. No way could they make money on that. No way could it be a fair price, not even close. I feel guilty, like I'm complicit in a robbery.
In this case the losers are those least able to afford to lose.
How so? Using my example, one loser was the provider. Other losers would be those who paid $940 and those who couldn't get the sonogram. I don't see how those, as a group, could be categorized as "least able to afford to lose."
Right now, at least in some cases, the poor and sick are subsidizing the people with insurance.
I don't see, either, the basis for that conclusion. Poor people can't afford to subsidize anyone. They simply don't have the capital. As for the sick, framing "the sick" vs. "the insured" just isn't a useful comparison. They are independent and overlapping sets. |
