Posted on 08/03/2019 8:41:36 AM PDT by gattaca
For too long the Superbowl was a “non-profit” event that brought them billions of dollars.
Non profits are not really non profit.
When the CEOs make an average of $2.5 million, it makes you wonder what “non-profit” means. At the very least, I think it means that the concept of “non-profit” - and any tax benefits associated with that status - needs to be seriously re-thought.
Well, they won't get a lot of returning customers that way.
Finally, the truth.
Monty, give me door #2.
The National Football League operated as a non-profit corporation because it functioned as an association of for-profit companies. The league's revenues are distributed to the NFL teams and reported as income and profits on THEIR tax returns.
From what I understand, the NFL's arrangement was similar to what you'd find in a commercial condominium association.
They eventually gave up their non-profit status for PR/optics reasons.
Sure they are. If too much money comes in, the CEO and other execs just get a big fat raise or bonuses to make sure it stays non-profit.
our local for profit hospital lost nearly $40 million last year- and might close- loads of hospitals are closing- likely due to the MASSIVE increase in welfare and medicaid patients both legal citizen and illegal-
The only thing I would add to this excellent essay is that we have had the emergence of what is at least a commonality of interest if not an actual coalition among payers, pharmaceutical companies, and hospitals (a new iron triangle) which appears to have succeeded in neutralizing the interests of the doctors and the patients (a longstanding dream which each element of this iron triangle was too weak to achieve on their own).
In addition to the lobbying influence of these organizations, the reason the Federal government and IRS don’t care much about this issue is that the corporations may not pay taxes on profits, but the exorbitant compensation for these executives IS taxable income.
Isn’t a “non profit” organization supposed to be dedicated to some charitable mission of some sort?
I know a non profit can earn a profit, but I also thought non profits don’t pay dividends to shareholders, and that expenses have to be related to the charitable mission. Is this correct?
So villanizing the salary of the ceo is the issue?
Effin tards.
The hospital, like any business, has to be managed ti profitability
True enough - but the "winners" in this dance of death are surviving because of arguably illegal coordination and political protection.
In 2018, the American Hospital Association spent $23 million on "lobbying", and was #5 out of 4273 lobbying groups.
They are certainly getting their money's worth.
That depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
"Raked in". Not "earned". Not "recieved compensation of". "Raked in".
The author wants you to dislike him.
expenses have to be related to the charitable mission. Is this correct?
That depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
LOL reminds me of the Clintons, and their “charity”.
Daughter Chelsea earns a six figure salary from the Clinton charity.
But seriously, there must be some latitude on what allowable expenses are. I heard that while the non profits don’t pay income tax, they file informational returns with the IRS, which are subject to audit, as any of our income tax returns can be.
In my area of rural Oregon, one medical group has bought up nearly all doctors practices, and all hospitals and clinics. There are really no alternatives, unfortunately, because the two hospitals are bad, rated as among the worst in the state. At least the food is good.
There are no doctors who are seeing new patients, so I see PAs who are in their final phase of training, where they see patients. They are under the supervision of a med school doctor.
There is a small medical school in town, teaching osteopathy. Some of the best doctors I've seen have been osteopaths (DO). For those who don't know, a DO receives the same training as a DR, and then some.
The morons who populate American politics, and particularly Democrat American politics, wanted their name on a piece of legislation that let them claim they ‘reformed’ health care. They realized that physicians and affiliate caregivers have limited clout, and that the ‘big players’ they had to deal with were going to be the hospital corporations, the insurance companies, and the pharmaceutical companies. So they cut deals with all of them - and this has led to the current disaster (and it is a disaster).
Heath care costs will never go down as long as the current overabundance (and growing) of those in ‘administrative roles’ continues. As I’ve said before, one solution is for the government to limit all administrative costs on every dollar a hospital receives for Medicare or medicaid reimbursement to 10% or less. The private insurers will quickly follow suit. The administrators in hospitals will start to eat each other, and the number of administrators will plummet - as will health care costs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.