Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase have announced that they are collaborating to create an independent health care company for their US employees that could possibly expand to all Americans in the future, especially if other businesses follow their health care plans. Right now it’s unclear how the companies are expecting to do this (will they help find local doctors? negotiate lower prices for medicines?) or how it will affect taxes, but they do plan that this company will have no “profit-making incentives.” Right now, about 151 million people receive health insurance from an employer and many people are concerned about the high cost and uncertainty of the Affordable Care Act. Through this initiative, the companies’ executives aim to reduce health care’s economic burden and create a model for successful health care.
I like the idea of having cheaper and more easily accessible health care, but I don’t know how successful this plan will actually be in practice. In class we learned about how private corporations can work faster than the bureaucracy because their power is more centralized and they have more access to resources. So in theory, I do think Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase can find a solution to the US’s health care problem faster than agencies and Congress. However, their plan is still pretty new and vague, and even companies as powerful as these might not have much influence in the pharmacy area. I don’t think that these companies' health care will cost less than the current plan, but I hope I’m wrong.
What are your thoughts on this? Do you think this initiative can/will be successful? Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase only plan to offer this to their employees, but do you think they will be able to expand to more of the public in the future and sustain a smaller cost?
Sources:
7 comments:
I think that this is an exciting idea, yet I am not too sure how I feel about it since they are making no claims about promising to reduce health care costs for their employees. In fact, Warren Buffet claimed that, "Our group does not come to this problem with answers"---referring to the high costs of health care. I understand that figuring out how to decrease prices for health care is a very complicated task, but I think that the companies which can figure out how to do that will be most successful. If all this initiative does is help its employees find doctors, then I do not think that it will be adopted by other companies or even preferred over the existing system.
I, too, see the benefits of another healthcare provider, although (like Haley) I'm skeptical of the relationship between this new organization and the government's current healthcare plan. I think it's an admirable initiative to provide employees with a comprehensive healthcare, but this initiative will most likely not be adopted by other companies or the government.
I think this healthcare plan can serve as a case study, and those who help develop this program can provide their services or guidance to bureaucracies should they implement a vague policy that requires significant structuring and logistic organization.
First of all, what can I say? The free market provides. I win.
If any of you know me at all, you'd probably predict that I'm extremely enthusiastic about this plan. First of all, I have to concede that I'm a little bemused that a major healthcare of pharmaceutical company isn't in on this opportunity (CVS/Aetna, anyone?) and I feel as if the integration of a major profit-focused healthcare provider would make this deal a lot easier and streamline the proposed program.
Government and private industry are both alike in that they have an indirect responsibility to take care of their workers or citizens. A government or country faces a heath crisis with an ill population, and companies lose productivity with workers taking out sick-day after sick-day. However, we already know that government does a less effective job at setting policies than private industry.
Obamacare, for all the healthcare it provided, was flawed. It relied on a massive government-subsidized healthcare initiative that relied on cohersive methods to make healthy people buy healthcare that those healthy people didn't need. Health care became another entitlement, especially with the individual mandate. By great contrast, this health care company (can we call it Buffetcare? I'm calling it Buffetcare) is a health care company that would presumably be funded by those three collaborating corporations-thus, the success of Buffetcare is tied to the productivity and revenue of those three corporations. Thus, people are actively working for their healthcare, as they should.
I don't think there is a solution to the "high cost" of healthcare. If anything, Obamacare made healthcare more expensive for most people (those who did have jobs and can afford to pay for healthcare their health care have to effectively pay for others who can't). Healthcare has to be that expensive because doctors deserve pay, scientists deserve pay, and the healthcare professions need to be appealing (in terms of salary or benefits) or else there will not be enough people providing the care when we need it because there are so many better opportunities to make money. Perhaps the best way to ensure healthcare for as many people as possible is if as many people as possible got good enough jobs to pay for good quality healthcare on their own.
I agree with Granger in what he cited as the pitfalls of Obamacare as well as how this new "Buffetcare" could potentially improve it if it works out. People should work for their own care for as much as possible, not have to work for other people's, and not feel entitled either. The truth is that health care will always be flawed, but nothing we can do can make the world equal. If someone shoots you and doesn't have insurance or the ability to pay for your bills, you have to foot them, even if you are the victim, and no change to insurance or healthcare can change that.
I think that on paper, this sounds like a good idea. However, I'm not too sure about the execution. This plan overall seems a little too good to be true. I do not think that they will be able to make healthcare significantly more affordable, because even if they're a non-profit organization, there is still so many costs that need to be paid for, just as Michael says. I don't think that this will influence the government or other insurance companies even if it is slightly successful.
First of all, rip to a lot of big health companies like United Health on Tuesday. Once the announcement was made, the Dow dropped more than 350 points sending many health care stocks falling below 3-7%. This decisions will ultimately affect many of the existing health companies as investors might potentially steer away and look into another possible ipo filing in the future. But I don't think this project will get anywhere because a few days after the announcement, the market rebounded.
I think that private corporations providing healthcare is an interesting idea. I am not skeptical about the execution, as Amazon and the other companies have lots of resources and revenue to cover at least some employees. However, most studies have indicated that millennials and generation z will have more jobs and careers than previous generations. Thus, switching jobs could mean changing health care or even losing health care for many in the future. If private companies were to start providing health care to employees, there would be more pressure for other companies to do so as well, which might improve the overall quality of health care. Any option would be costly, though.
Post a Comment