Post by messi05 on Jan 24, 2024 11:22:13 GMT
A piece of news was published in Valor Econômico that confuses more than it explains. It is said, for example, that there has been an increase in health plan profits. The following is stated: "The revenue of health plan operators increased by 12.8%, to R$158.3 billion, in 2016. Costs, in turn, grew by 14.4% to R$125.5 billion, according to data from the National Supplementary Health Agency (ANS). The sector ended last year with a profit of R$6.2 billion, which represents a growth of 70.6% when compared to 2015." Let's go. From reading the excerpt above, it is extremely easy to see that costs increased more than revenues. Furthermore, it is not clear whether this supposed increase in profit took inflation into account.
Likewise, it was not demonstrated Buy Phone Number List whether a comparison was made between the successive losses of previous years. In other words, the news says it all, but explains nothing, leaving a message of an apparent “resounding increase” in company results. Another point, apparently left aside, was the inflationary cost and its impact on this “profit”. It is worth mentioning, in due course, that inflation is a consequence of monetary expansion, which can only be attributed to the State that prints paper money or disastrously expands the amounts available for credit (the famous loans of all types). So, was there really this “brutal” increase in profits? Nines out, it's easy to report increases, but what's difficult is finding the causes.
Then a judge grants an insured person more than what was contracted, what happens? Or, better yet, who pays? Obviously, the cost is shared by society. There is no free lunch, as Milton Friedman would say. Therefore, any course corrections in the cost of insurance would be more linked to “negative externalities” — unexpected bad consequences — of social justice than to corporate “greed”. This assessment is very important. If the market were free, with total competition, without interference and monetary maintenance — that is, without printing money and credit everywhere — it would be possible, eventually, to blame companies and the business community for possible increases in prices.
Likewise, it was not demonstrated Buy Phone Number List whether a comparison was made between the successive losses of previous years. In other words, the news says it all, but explains nothing, leaving a message of an apparent “resounding increase” in company results. Another point, apparently left aside, was the inflationary cost and its impact on this “profit”. It is worth mentioning, in due course, that inflation is a consequence of monetary expansion, which can only be attributed to the State that prints paper money or disastrously expands the amounts available for credit (the famous loans of all types). So, was there really this “brutal” increase in profits? Nines out, it's easy to report increases, but what's difficult is finding the causes.
Then a judge grants an insured person more than what was contracted, what happens? Or, better yet, who pays? Obviously, the cost is shared by society. There is no free lunch, as Milton Friedman would say. Therefore, any course corrections in the cost of insurance would be more linked to “negative externalities” — unexpected bad consequences — of social justice than to corporate “greed”. This assessment is very important. If the market were free, with total competition, without interference and monetary maintenance — that is, without printing money and credit everywhere — it would be possible, eventually, to blame companies and the business community for possible increases in prices.