Comments on: When is a non-profit not a non-profit?

By: Bridgett

Bridgett — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:03:17 +0000

But really, who would want bottom of the barrel insurance such as kaiser? That money could be better spent, say for instance, actually providing care for the members they already have. I personally, wouldn’t pay 2 cents a month for kaiser insurance.

By: JC

JC — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 06:27:55 +0000

Right, and when premiums are lowered I’ll eat this blog.

1/3 of Kaiser Permanente is comprised of the FOR PROFIT Permanente Medical Groups (the senior partner doctors are the shareholders). 50% of the profits go back to them in the form of bonuses and retirement benefits, creating an implied incentive to deny care. Only the health plan and hospitals are technically not-for-profit, and you’re right, they can blow that money any way they want to…like on a disastrously wasteful EMR called HealthConnect, for instance.

For fun I divided $2.5 billion by $3,600 (a generous estimate of what it would cost to insure one individual for a year at $300/mo.) and got almost 700,000…that’s right, nearly 3/4 of a million people could be insured with Kaiser’s loose change.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 01:07:15 +0000

So WHO profited? Sure, people who work at Kaiser got paid their salary (sometimes BIG salaries, like at all BIG entities), but no one “profited.” No shareholders earned dividends. No stock holder investors sold their stock for a profit. I think the money goes back into the business for improvements, research and lowering (not raising) member premiums.