[omginternets]

>There can be pernicious motives whether a facility is nominally for profit or not.

This is colloquially known as "whataboutism".

The fact that there are other pernicious motives is completely irrelevant. For-profit medicine constitutes a pernicious motive -- that's the point.

[johncolanduoni]

I believe the GP is arguing that the same exact motives can happen in non-profit hospitals (as in the tax designation). This amounts to (at most) no more than a different route for the profits to those setting these policies. IMHO seeing this as a separate issue makes about as much sense as seeing false advertising to be separate problem depending on whether the corporation files as a C-corp or S-corp.

I for one think it is very important that any attempts to prevent this behavior don't leave loopholes for non-profit hospitals, so keeping this in mind here is actually very important.

[maxerickson]

Well, I don't agree with that. I see generous salaries as being exactly the same thing as profit (they are just taxed differently). I also have difficulty with the idea that only de facto agents of the state can deliver healthcare (care only available at fixed prices, etc).

So my point is that you need external controls regardless of the motivations of the actors inside the institution.

[rounce]

> I also have difficulty with the idea that only de facto agents of the state can deliver healthcare (care only available at fixed prices, etc).

It seems that they aren't the only difficulties you have. In a social health-care system, possession of a medical license doesn't entail one's employer. You're more than welcome to set up private practice, though you'll have less chance of the career defining cases, as the majority of patients will not be using your one-man-band practice. Thus many doctors in the UK, split their time between their private practice and public services. The only thing that's "de-facto" is the need to be qualified to treat people.

[maxerickson]

It's implicit in the argument I replied to that the side practice better not deliver excess economic benefits (profits!) compared to working in the public facilities.

[omginternets]

This is completely beside the point. "For-profit healthcare" and "well-paid doctors" are distinct concepts.

Doctors are still very well-paid in France, for instance. It's just that the hospital isn't expected to turn a profit.

[maxerickson]

I'm arguing that compensation and profit are actually the same thing.

They are both economic benefits from providing a valued product or service. Saying that the one is evil while ignoring the other doesn't make any sense at all. It's the opposite of being beside the point.

Take the case of 2 doctors that have the same price list. One is better at doctoring and sees more patients. Because there is only the other doctor, their faster appointments represent a higher income than the other doctor. The second doctor still manages to provide competent care to all the patients they see, but they are capturing less economic benefit than Dr. Speedy. Is Dr. Speedy evil for charging the going rate?