Govt stepped in quickly on the brink of this outbreak though. Govt called 34 companies together each responsible for different parts of mask manufacturing from material, machine parts, installation, assembly, etc and govt up front paid 6 million USD for 62 production lines to be installed and assigned military personnel to help man the lines 24/7.
Daily mask production ramped up from 3 million to 10 million in 3 weeks. This is only barely covering Taiwan's domestic needs. Taiwan is now aiming for daily production of 20 million.
For distribution, govt rations out all manufactured masks. Currently each citizen gets 9-10 masks every 2 week and I believe each doctor receives 40 per week. The price of the masks for regular folks is fixed at around 1 USD for 6 masks. It is free for med staff.
As for the installed production line, once the mask maker reached the production quota of 5 million masks for a particular production line, the mask maker gets to keep that production line for free. Note that the mask makers, once involved in this project, pretty much gave their business as usual.
I would think it is tax dollar well spent.
EDIT: Try and include some English references: - [https://focustaiwan.tw/business/202003090013] - [https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2020/03/10/...] - [https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2020/03...] - [https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/coronavirus-how-...] - [http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2020/02/15/20...]
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762689
and a timeline:
https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/jama/...
From another perspective, he's having trouble getting long time contracts. Hospitals could give him that extra 90c per mask (10c per mask per the article, 1$ suggested price in your comment) by signing a contract to buy x masks every year for 10 years instead of just signing a contract to buy x masks.
It seems that the actual problem might just be hospitals being stingy.
“His masks may cost a dime each, but a made-in-China mask might go for two cents.”
A hospital charged my friend $5k for three stitches. They could pay 8 cents more per mask. But they care more about $$$ than the long term health of the country.
And I’m not even making a moral statement with that. It’s the natural consequence of making health care a capitalist endeavor. There are other approaches.
We're suggesting the hospital giving him 1 dollar per mask instead of 10 cents during the crisis, that's an extra 90. 98 cents compared to the Chinese prices.
I guess my proposal makes it a bit less. With the 10 year contract, assuming that the demand spike only exists in the first year, it would be an extra 90 cents - savings of (9 years * 2 cents / year) = 72 cents per mask. This could be "fixed" by extending that contract for a few more years.
$1 is an absolute bargain.
$0.10 is vastly below the cost of manufacture and only being promoted by people who mean harm.
(I'm pretty sure that's not what the person you were replying to is going for - but it is a very problematic piece of the regulatory environment which is unique to hospitals)
Nobody knows all the regulations, and asking for a list seems a bit clueless.
What's clueless is to use the word "regulations" like it's some incantation.
Healthcare is heavily regulated because medical care is not usually something you can restitute after the fact. If you sell me a defective widget my life doesn't depend on I can get my money back or sue you to get it back. If a doctor sticks a defective medical widget in my body and I die, I can't really do much about it afterwards.
I'd prefer that doctor's certifications have some sort of regulatory oversight. I'd also like medical widgets to be regulated so there's stringent QA and manufacturing process qualifications.
The attachment of medical insurance to employment is another.
If you don't already know at least a few of these, you're probably a student or not interested.
That's just one.
I had a few of my undergrad bio and chem labs with a Vietnamese doctor who came to the US, I always tried to be in his group whenever possible because he had the most insight into the Industry as a result of his transition.
Apparently, because he was educated and practiced in Vietnam he was forced to have to repeat the entire process to enroll into Medical school. I'm not sure if was on loans or doing it on his own, but he must of have been determined to make it happen, because I'd probably do the same as your colleague if forced to do it all again.
He was an older guy, I was 18 or 19 so anything over 25 was 'old' to me but I think he was in his 30s while we were in our 2nd year courses.
With all of the polemics surrounding COVID19, I think the least we should do is take away the power of the AMA-like Institution to determine how many medical students can be enrolled into any program and make any necessary accommodations to ensure it happens.
Making the current medical staff do the equivalent of an understaffed, under supplied death march has to make reason prevail regardless of our stance.
Private and Public medicine is an issue to come back to, but being short staffed in a pandemic is suicidal--Italy recalling retired medical staff was alarming, but also highlighting that a Public Medical system is not yielding the panacea many suggest, either.
And for anyone asking for a source on the AMA's practices look at his, I remember reading this in 2005 as I was in school, and being schooled and trained as if I wanted to take MCAT because of the looming shortages caused by retiring boomers, even though I had no interest in Medicine:
https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-docto...
"Competition and Monopoly in Medical Care" by Frech
https://www.amazon.com/Competition-Monopoly-Medical-Care-Fre...
EDIT: There are also separate osteopathic graduate schools and foreign med schools (Caribbean) that aren't limited by the AMA and still funnel thru the same match program.
And it’s somewhat how it’s still is in some fields of it primarily cosmetic, elective surgery (including LASIC and the likes) and dentistry.
There are plenty of countries where the majority of the health care is provided by private firms even if the state picks up the bill or part of it including almost all countries with universal healthcare.
The US is pretty much unique in costs and distribution of burden and it’s not because of the free market approach to healthcare.
When 9 out of the 10 most profitable hospitals in US aren’t even private/for profit you can’t simply claim that the investment firm or HMO that owns the hospital tries to suck out as much profit as possible for their shareholders.
P.S. I don’t agree that regulations are the problem anyone who thinks that you somehow would get better results with deregulating healthcare is likely very wrong, the entire system in the US is however broken and not because of simply campitalism.
How exactly do you measure the profit of a non-profit?
Non-profit is a misnomer - not for profit is a more apt phrase. While they can't operate with the intent of generating profit, they're perfectly allowed to actually generate profit from various activities. With the intention that the profits from that activity will be a revenue stream that funds loss-making activities elsewhere which support their nonprofit mission (such as issuing grants). Hence it's kept on the books as net assets.
[1] https://smallbusiness.chron.com/non-profit-accounting-defini...
They have to reinvest their profits back into the business that can be grants but can also be increasing pay to their staff or expanding their operation.
Two thirds of US hospitals are NFP (public, community, university etc) or government hospitals.
Ironically the more money they make and the bigger they are the higher prices they tend to charge because they can negotiate higher rates with the insurance providers.
The US system is simply broken the US healthcare has a huge problem with uncompensated care which is one of the primary reasons why most hospitals lose money on primary care.
This means that hospitals are “forced” to extract as much money as possible form insurers so your healthcare costs do not only incorporate the risks of all policy holders for your specific provider but also the uncompensated care costs of the hospitals.
The insurers then extract as much money as they can from their clients which primarily are business which don’t seem to care that much as they can often write of much of that cost as operating expenses.
This pretty much causes a cycle of inflation that is unsustainable under normal circumstances and will utterly brake the entire systems under extremes like the current pandemic.
Stitches are very easy to administer. Nobody needs a uni degree to stitch up a wound. They need lots of practice.
It is impossible for a reasonably free market to charge $5,000 for 3 stitches; because an independent doctor would set up next door with a sign saying "Stitches; $4,500!" and drive home in his Lamborghini every day. The hospital and the independent doctor would then start undercutting each other until the margins were no longer outrageous and they have to think a bit before dropping their prices any further.
If a hospital can get away with charging $5k for 3 stitches, any market freedom has long ago been exorcised.
Also that kind of emergency care is quite rare. It's a very small part of the healthcare system and mostly confuses the discussion.
> Because that would be the worst imaginable PR.
You're wrong. "Bad PR" has not worked at all to encourage the healthcare industry to fix medical billing on its own. See this article for an example:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/magazine/those-indecipher...
It's literally impossible to comparison shop healthcare, and I've tried. You can't properly diagnose yourself, for the same reason a doctor can't properly debug your code. You have no idea how treatment is going to be coded (and you'd have to be an expert to understand the codes and their implications, anyway). Hospitals will only tell you their inflated "list prices." Your insurance won't tell you anything about what they've negotiated with the hospitals in your area until you've been billed, since they consider that information proprietary.
Most healthcare is to solve real health problems (from mild to extremely serious). People won't decide to live with those problems unless they're forced to, so they can't opt out of the system until it's fixed.
Indeed this is true.
The solution to this, though, is to make it required for hospitals to post their prices, as well as to make it illegal for hospitals to give preferential rates to insurance deals.
But not trivial to implement correctly. What exactly is the menu of procedures, and who standardizes (and updates) it? It would be much harder to comparison shop if there were a million entries (and every hospital offers a subset). Can hospitals select their patients, e.g. post great prices & outcomes by only accepting patients under 50 (or just with few other health issues)?
If you have time to listen to the podcast, it can be very eyeopening.
If they can do it, why the fuck can't doctors do the same? The system is so obviously rotten.
It took years to find that almost every facility nearby does the tests he orders for no copay at all. But Beth-Israel doesn't see a problem with charging literally over a hundred dollars after insurance for a blood draw.
I guess a very big and very evil problem for another time, but our health care system is a house of cards.
Huh?
The question I answered was about "people who are literally passed out and bleeding out on stretchers to price shop"
I agree that medical billing is a corrupt disaster.
No one hates their food stores that I'm aware of, even though that demand is at least as inelastic as for healthcare.
Also, I would like to point out that the vast majority of medical issues are not emergencies.
Maybe there is a reasonable argument that ambulances, and emergency rooms should be highly regulated. But, fortunately, the vast majority of medical issues do not involve going to an emergency room.
Before the government got heavily involved in healthcare in the 1960s, healthcare was cheap.
Edit: requested cite: https://www.thebalance.com/causes-of-rising-healthcare-costs...
Feel free to make a moral case against Reagan's decision if you feel like it.
Healthcare was cheaper before Reagan interfered in the health care industry to artificially inflate costs to the financial benefit of his buddies.
I bought a 383 big block engine for my dodge, and a friend of mine was helping me move it into the garage. I tripped and fell on top of the block, making quite a gash in my eye socket. Lucky I missed my eye. Still have a scar! Sadly, the block turned out to have a crack in it and was not salvageable.
That's still more than most Americans could easily afford. And that's for stitches.
Couldn't we say the same thing about the owner of this factory? He could gear up and then pay unemployment for laid-off workers after the crisis ends; he did it once.
I am also not a fan of our health-care system, but...it's complicated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGDUqBLtyNM
DIY can save money. I've used superglue for this in the past.
I seriously can't believe I have to say this.
With the Healthcare situation in the US, it's basically past the point of just saying "go to a doctor, don't diy." Now it's just better to give out accurate information for diy people to do it safely.
The difference between you and a doctor for little things like stitches that causes the $5k price tag is a couple of hours of study, credentialism, beurocracy and malpractice insurance. Only the couple of hours study is actually needed and you can do that yourself pretty easily with the internet.
Search for “tissue adhesive” or “liquid bandage”.
Most hospitals run at profit margins well below 10%. Median operating margins are in the vicinity of 2% (https://www.modernhealthcare.com/providers/operating-margins...) And for the last few years, expenses have been growing faster than revenues (though the rate of growth of expenses has slowed.)
Whatever you imagine they're bringing in, they're not.
Nor is their job to maintain the long-term health of the country. That's literally the government's job.
[1] Those numbers have a historical reason behind them, which people are either ignorant of or choose to ignore. The short version is: hospital prices are set as a part of the negotiations with insurers. Insurers account for the vast, vast majority of dollars going into hospitals, so their business operations are built completely and entirely around insurance dollars. Uninsured patients register as barely more than a rounding error. So while, yes, being uninsured in this context sucks, hospitals aren't gleefully rubbing their hands and going "muahaha, $5K for stitches!" They don't expect to see that 5K, they don't rely on that 5K, and they're not trying to gouge that uninsured person who's almost certainly not good for that 5K. That person has just fallen into the crack(s) in our healthcare system, which are more complicated than "evil greedy hospital", or "evil greedy insurer."
No, it isn't. It's everybody's job. The government is a tool we use to delegate certain aspects of that job--and often it's a very bad tool to use and we should be relying on it less, not more. The idea that "it's the government's job" to do things causes all kinds of problems, because people think they can just let the government take care of it and not have to worry about it any more. You can't do that. Ultimately it is we, the people, who are responsible.
What a bizarre position. This distributed approach to the emergency health of nations hasn't worked out well in the current situation.
I can't see how it would suddenly start working better in the future under our current economic system either. Everything is set up under economic pressures such that inefficiencies are ruthlessly exposed and eliminated.
This maybe works out OK for creating new generations of electronic gizmos but it is catastrophically fragile for things like PPE as described in the article.
To avoid something like this in the future, the only options I can see are more government control or rethink how economic systems work.
I don't see how it's bizarre to recognize what the US Constitution says.
> This distributed approach to the emergency health of nations hasn't worked out well in the current situation.
In the US at least, what hasn't worked is waiting for centralized authorities to tell people what to do, instead of just doing obvious common sense things like social distancing and wearing masks. Not to mention allowing the FDA to prevent state and local health authorities from taking obvious common sense measures to develop tests, either on their own or in cooperation with private labs, when it was clear that the FDA and CDC didn't have tests ready.
> more government control
Would be a bad idea, since the more centralized authority controls things, the worse the consequences are when the centralized authority makes a mistake.
> rethink how economic systems work
What you call the "catastrophically fragile" economic system is a product of government control. So again more government control seems like a bad idea.
E.g., I had my vocal cords looked at; took only ~1/2 hour of an ENTs time, and is a (somewhat) common and non-risky procedure. $4,000. I have no way to justify that price — I highly doubt the ENT is making $8k/hr! It was one of the big reasons that drove me away from PPOs in general: completely opaque, expensive, retroactive billing. Going to the doctors puts you on the hook for near unlimited liability.
Now, Kaiser was a nice contrast; I had the opportunity to get my wrist operated on for RSI. Somewhat invasive, would require weeks of healing, not guaranteed to be successful (it had a ~50% success rate!): $300, priced out before the operation.
(Sadly, I'm no longer with Kaiser, as they were west-coast and the rent was too high.)
https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/hospitals-by-owner...
“Profit” and “income” are two entirely different things. All businesses, whether for-profit or non-profit, aim to generate income (i.e make money) so they can further their goals.
Profit is when you take that income and distribute it to shareholders. The main difference between for-profit and non-profit companies is that non-profits cannot do this.
The distinction of “non-profit” means a lot less than most people assume it does.
Basically it's hard to reconcile the fact that hospitals are "non-profit" while also charging what seems excessively for everything.
I haven't looked through financial statements of one of these hospitals, but does anyone else have any experience with doing so and do they actually see that hospitals do need to charge those enormous amounts for everything to run effectively or to survive?
Non-profit does not mean volunteer. It doesn't mean they don't make money. It never has. Non-profits are businesses. They operate like businesses. Any impression you had that they do anything differently is a misconception.
It is common for people to equate the word "profit" with "making money", and therefore mistakenly assume that "non-profit" must mean they don't make money. But the word here is specifically referring to the ownership of the organizations net-assets: all assets belong to the business itself, rather than it being the equity of shareholders.
Non-profit only means that the company must use it's property for its own organizational goals, and it does not have owners that the property can be distributed to.
> I haven't looked through financial statements of one of these hospitals, but does anyone else have any experience with doing so and do they actually see that hospitals do need to charge those enormous amounts for everything to run effectively or to survive?
From a link someone else posted elsewhere in the comments:
> Median operating margins reached 1.7% in 2018
https://www.modernhealthcare.com/providers/operating-margins...
> As the drug industry has come back down to earth, the returns of the 46 middlemen on the list have soared. Fifteen years ago they accounted for a fifth of industry profits; now their share is 41%.
An example of a middleman firm is Express Scripts (a prescription management / negotiation firm) which had an operating income of $5B in 2017 on revenues of $100B. The parent company Cigna (NYSE:CI) handles a broader array of insurance things and had an operating income of almost $10B in the last twelve months but on revenue of $160B.
Medical billing in this country is insane and full of inefficiency. A little bit of each part gets collected along the way, and it adds up. I don’t even think ExpressScripts would have been counted in the methodology that The Economist was using (excess profits are considered a >10% return on capital) as part of Cigna.
[1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.economist.com/business/2018...
If you have the procedure codes that were billed you can likely look up the Medicare reimbursement rates for them. Private insurance would pay more than that, but not orders of magnitude more.
He billed 4K. The contracted rate he got from an insurer is significantly below that. A huge chunk of that disappeared to malpractice insurance before he got to paying the rest of his overhead.
He saw, as another poster said, maybe 15% of that.
Have you seen the lavishness of the modern US hospital? The art pieces, high vaulted ceilings on every floor, solariums, gardens, decorative architecture... These things are not free. They are very, very expensive! And at the same time, they are fucking worthless in regards to making people healthy. I pay my insurance because I want to be healthy, not so the hospital I go to looks pretty. They are marketing machines that live outside their means, and I should not owe them $5k for stitches. It's fucking insane, and it's greed to use those massive markups on people who are in life or death situations. It's equivalent to wartime profiteering.
Check-in with security: Yes, because this is 'Merica and it has actually become necessary to do a preliminary screen to make sure you are not a raving nutjob.
Check-in with receptionist: Enter you into the system, until this point is hit you are not even at the hospital as far as the system is concerned.
Talk to nurse assistant: No, this is not just an assistant for a nurse, but rather a term used to describe someone who has a particular level of training and commensurate duties. A CNA can take vitals, ensure that they have the proper records for you (e.g. records say vi is a 45 year-old white male and we have a 60 year-old Latina, maybe we need to double-check things.) This is also the first real step in the triage process where someone with medical background can make a quick decision as to whether or not you need to be seen quickly or can wait.
Talk to nurse: Ok, now we actually start doing more fine-grained examination and diagnosis. Chances are this is where the real diagnosis and treatment was decided, but you don't need to know this.
Talk to doctor: Now someone who is very busy will take a few moments to examine you and make a decision. The nurse you talked to earlier put markup on your chart indicating what she noticed and found as well as possible standard treatments for same so the doctor was able to confirm that it was horses and not zebras and then sign off on the treatment.
In a hospital all of that process you think of as inefficient does not give a shit about you or your time, it is trying to maximize the value and impact of the time that really matters in a hospital: the attention of doctors and RNs. The process may have been inconvenient for you, but it means that the people who matter at that hospital only spend their time where it is needed and trivial tasks or downtime are handled elsewhere in the process.
Evil greedy medical industrial complex?
I think most of the issues in the US medical situation come from everyone trying to profit as much as possible.
Also, I highly doubt this guy is using 10 year contracts.
If I was him I would only be selling to those hospitals that sign 100 year contracts with strict non compete clauses and defined rules around sourcing / pricing and failures to comply.
Exactly. IIRC Sysco negotiates 50-99 year contracts with e.g. universities to supply on campus dining. It seems that firms in the healthcare supply chain would do the same.
Yes, there is: the cash flow for the two cases is very, very different. Case b) is doable for a reasonable cash flow. Case a) is impossible unless someone else besides the hospital provides the huge up front amount of cash required to pay $0.80/mask for the first year.
Maybe not under normal circumstances, but these are not normal circumstances. Also, we're talking N95 masks, not ordinary surgical masks.
Nothing in the article says these are N95 masks, I don't believe you are correct. But also, what does that have to do with my comment?
Hospitals have to stay afloat just like everyone else. If they go bankrupt, they close, just like everyone else.
If the government agrees it's a national security matter for us to have our own PPE production pipeline, then it needs to stop in. It can't expect private facilities, that have to make their own budget targets, to take on the cost of keeping up national priorities. That's literally what the government is for.
But that’s beside the point. Almost all disposable medical supplies are cheap in isolation. They build contracts for a whole bunch of supplies, in massive quantities, over time.
Those pennies add up.
Again, operating margins <2%.
Until you’ve internalized what that means, I don’t see a high value in going back and forth.
As for long term contract, the argument is ok up to certain extend. The cost of machine is quite high, several $m, it is a fixed cost, but negligible with high production volume - not that high to justify 10y contract.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/16/8149292...
Governments preventing price increases just means that supply doesn't increase nearly as quickly as it would otherwise.
The company in the article is closed on nights and weekends. Don't you think there's a price at which they'd stay open, thus increasing supply?
There is no price at which these masks can be sold which will meaningfully impact supply before Covid 19 burns itself out.
Such price increases are honestly more likely to incentivize people digging their P100 masks out of their garages and workshops and donating those.
But with it illegal, you'd be relying on self-sacrifice and altruism, which isn't very reliable. Greed is a much more effective motivator.
I read his article: he claims can't get the volume to justify adding more shifts. Well, right now he could, even though the additional shifts would presumably cost more (more expensive labor costs, more inputs (e.g. energy), and likely a higher cost for the new raw materials wheich he'd have to get on the spot market as opposed to the long term agreements he already has.
There's really nothing stopping him from doing this, except he's busy appearing on Bannon's podcast. And he says "well it would just be a drop in the bucket" -- likely it would be meaningful for Texas though, and then Texas's external demand would drop a little, allowing someone else to get access. This is how the economy is supposed to work.
But instead he says the government should give him a long term contract. Well boo hoo. He describes the capabilities he has but complains instead of taking advantage of them. And the newspaper doesn't call him on it.
>Laws often include exceptions for price increases that can be justified in terms of increased cost of supply, transportation, demand or storage
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_gouging#What_the_law_pro...
First, he may be in the clear legally, but that doesn't mean he has no legal risk. Some enterprising DA could try to dispute that that his price increases could be justified.
Second, I tried to be precise when I said "anti-price gouging sentiment." Even if it's legal to raise prices, the risk of a public backlash makes it safer to just keep the factory working normal hours. That's a harder problem to fix than bad laws, though.
Is it supposed to be a good thing that people would work 100hr weeks during a pandemic and compromise their immune systems? Why not just hire more staff and have them work healthy 40 hour weeks? It's not as if unemployment is low right now.
Let me reframe is this way: There is some emergency wage where his employees would enthusiastically work substantially more than they are right now. There's some price-per-mask where the owner would enthusiastically pay them that wage to get extra masks out of the factory. That price-per-mask would still count as a steal compared to the cost of a healthcare worker developing COVID-19. Everyone would be better off if hospitals were paying that price. So why aren't they?
Like the current Uber driver case.
Everyone's already charging more for masks, he should be able to manage a decent market rate. To begin with, unemployed people in a pinch are probably willing to accept slightly lower pay.
There are laws about what constitutes contractors vs employees - both federal and state. If you satisfy N out of M items in a checklist, you are an employee, regardless of whether both parties want you to be.
Controlling how you do your job is one of them. If the employer directs how you can do the job and doesn't give you freedom to do it your own way, that's a major item.
If your employer doesn't let you bring your own equipment, that's another one.
If you do not have a chance of losing money on the contract, that's another one. Say you hire a contractor to repair your roof, and he screws it up. Typically he is expected to fix it even if he ends up with a net loss (or he can refuse and not get paid at all). When an employee screws up, the worst that will happen is he'll get fired.
And so on.
It's very unlikely these people can be contractors unless he's hiring experienced folks who know the equipment.
I think you have misunderstood the suggestion; it's not about contractors vs. employees, it's about fixed-term versus not.
Fixed-term employees are not classed as contractors. They are regular employees with all the usual benefits and rights of employement - except that it comes to an end at a pre-determined date, unless extended.
Regulations have many unseen side effects that end up causing damage, people should think harder about them and they would realize that in many cases (most in my opinion) they do more harm than good.
Because your analysis is wrong? You seem be assuming workers are some kind of machine that turns wages into output, and the more wages you put in, the more output you get, and you can freely adjust output by adjusting wages. You also seem to thing he has a lot of pricing flexibility due to the demand. I think those ideas have several problems:
1. There's an obvious limit to individual output, and his existing employees are probably operating close to that, especially since his business was already under stress.
2. Human psychology is complicated, and you're ignoring morale. A logical robot might have the same satisfaction with a certain wage before and after he's made much more than that, but a human probably won't (and that's even an oversimplification).
3. His customers are probably going be unhappy with him for raising prices in a crisis, regardless if he had good reasons for it or not. He's already dealing with the problem of customers leaving after a crisis for cheaper competitors, and a price increase now would probably make that problem even worse.
I'm as big an advocate as anyone for sustainable work practices, and I absolutely agree that most of the time working longer hours is counterproductive over the long term. But isn't working on an assembly line during a crisis pretty much the canonical counterexample? Output scales linearly with time even if you aren't feeling creative/fresh/energetic, and there's an urgent need for more masks now.
Why do you want the business owner to arbitrage his business when the people who do arbitrage for a living won't do it for him? If the experts at arbitrage declare it a bad idea, then he probably shouldn't do it either.
And he's not. That's sensible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrage
There's no arbitrage for the factory taking a loan, it is just a business risk.
NOT A SINGLE WEALTHY PERSON has done this. None. Zero. Nada.
There's your answer as to the priorities of capitalism.
Granted, companies work hard to be devious. But when we allow them to spend their profits on a whole slew of stuff that reduces their tax rates to zero percent, it seems churlish to blame the companies. Government specifically waived taxes in order to encourage e.g. R&D and now we, the people, are paying the price of the details of a large raft of this sort of law making.
Governments also use tax law to reward specific groups of people, for reasons both honorable and nefarious.
Identifying the motives for a given tax law is often quite difficult. Companies currently get to avoid most taxes on profits that are reinvested in activities that they certify as "research and developement". Is this possible because the government wants to encourage R&D or as a payoff to their political sponsors, or both?
It's non-trivial to answer, but what's easy to say with certainty is that is an example of _how_ companies avoid paying taxes, and if you want to stop it, you need new tax laws which don't permit/encourage this.