Business values are not compatible with Healthcare values

[icehorse]

I just heard this claim on NPR's Sunday weekend edition.

I think this is a REALLY powerful perspective. Big business is running much of healthcare in the U.S. and this fact seems to be "the elephant in the room" as the debates concerning the ACA vs. the AHCA, rage in Washington. Very few of our "leaders" are addressing this truth, that business values and healthcare values are not compatible.

By definition, when all of our leaders ignore this problem, what they debate on the topic will be suspect.

 

[Rival]

This is why all the Brits are going crazy at the Tory government selling parts of the NHS and privatising it.

 

[PureX]

I just heard this claim on NPR's Sunday weekend edition.

I think this is a REALLY powerful perspective. Big business is running much of healthcare in the U.S. and this fact seems to be "the elephant in the room" as the debates concerning the ACA vs. the AHCA, rage in Washington. Very few of our "leaders" are addressing this truth, that business values and healthcare values are not compatible.

By definition, when all of our leaders ignore this problem, what they debate on the topic will be suspect.

They don't dare address this idea because it will open a huge can of worms for the ruling oligarchy: that maximizing profits on capital investment is the primary concern fueling ALL of our nation's decision. Which makes the health and well-being of the nation's people at best an irrelevancy, and more often an obstacle to be eliminated. Once we accept the ideal that humanity is more important than profits to the capitalist investors, the whole capitalist system becomes problematic, and ultimately immoral.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Once we accept the ideal that humanity is more important than profits to the capitalist investors, the whole capitalist system becomes problematic, and ultimately immoral.

I have nothing to add to that. Well said!

 

[icehorse]

Once we accept the ideal that humanity is more important than profits to the capitalist investors, the whole capitalist system becomes problematic, and ultimately immoral.

Agreed (of course), on prioritizing humanity.

But capitalism is a complex machine, and as with all complex machines, it needs checks, balances, and tweaks. My take would be that capitalism needs oversight and regulation. Further, there are places where business probably ought not tread, like healthcare and prisons.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Agreed (of course), on prioritizing humanity.

But capitalism is a complex machine, and as with all complex machines, it needs checks, balances, and tweaks. My take would be that capitalism needs oversight and regulation. Further, there are places where business probably ought not tread, like healthcare and prisons.

If we have adequate enough restrictions and regulations, we couldn't even rightfully call it capitalism. Such as, if we ever get fortunate enough to get thorough consumer protection laws and scale way, way back on advertising, the profit motive would be significantly hindered and thwarted. Without profits, Capitalism doesn't have a leg to stand on, and without advertising--a cultural poison that is destroying the Earth and making society very ill--it's hard to rake in those extra dollars. And when you get to how bad it really is that you make money by having money (such as having millions to pump into Wall Street in order to make millions more), Capitalism becomes very difficult to defend because humanity and humanitarian efforts are not the center, focus, or goal of it, but only the advancement of a few at the expense of the many (even entire nations).

 

[Rival]

If we have adequate enough restrictions and regulations, we couldn't even rightfully call it capitalism. Such as, if we ever get fortunate enough to get thorough consumer protection laws and scale way, way back on advertising, the profit motive would be significantly hindered and thwarted. Without profits, Capitalism doesn't have a leg to stand on, and without advertising--a cultural poison that is destroying the Earth and making society very ill--it's hard to rake in those extra dollars. And when you get to how bad it really is that you make money by having money (such as having millions to pump into Wall Street in order to make millions more), Capitalism becomes very difficult to defend because humanity and humanitarian efforts are not the center, focus, or goal of it, but only the advancement of a few at the expense of the many (even entire nations).

I was wondering a few days ago what would happen if all forms of advertising were banned.

 

[PureX]

Agreed (of course), on prioritizing humanity.

But capitalism is a complex machine, and as with all complex machines, it needs checks, balances, and tweaks. My take would be that capitalism needs oversight and regulation. Further, there are places where business probably ought not tread, like healthcare and prisons.

Yes. Capital investment is a good thing for any society and it's economy. But under 'capitalism', all the decision-making power is being given to the capital investor, and all the capital investor wants is to maximize the profits returned on his investment. So that everyone else involved in the commercial endeavor becomes antithetical to that primary motive. Commerce becomes exploitation, whenever and however possible.

The answer is moderate socialism, wherein the well-being of society becomes the prime motive of commerce, and everyone involved in the commercial enterprise gains from the society's commercial activity, including the capital investor, but not exclusively the capital investor. A day's work of any kind should pay, at minimum, a day's wage, for example, and any product that cannot survive in the marketplace under that expectation should be considered commercially non-viable.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Agreed (of course), on prioritizing humanity.

But capitalism is a complex machine, and as with all complex machines, it needs checks, balances, and tweaks. My take would be that capitalism needs oversight and regulation. Further, there are places where business probably ought not tread, like healthcare and prisons.

Only government can do that. Much of the American electorate has been convinced that government is their enemy, and that the smaller the government, the better.

 

[icehorse]

If we have adequate enough restrictions and regulations, we couldn't even rightfully call it capitalism. Such as, if we ever get fortunate enough to get thorough consumer protection laws and scale way, way back on advertising, the profit motive would be significantly hindered and thwarted. Without profits, Capitalism doesn't have a leg to stand on, and without advertising--a cultural poison that is destroying the Earth and making society very ill--it's hard to rake in those extra dollars. And when you get to how bad it really is that you make money by having money (such as having millions to pump into Wall Street in order to make millions more), Capitalism becomes very difficult to defend because humanity and humanitarian efforts are not the center, focus, or goal of it, but only the advancement of a few at the expense of the many (even entire nations).

There is a LOT of truth to what you say. But...

Checks and Balances could / should include:

- VERY HIGH, loophole-free taxes on profit and high salaries and such
- Taxes on practices that negatively impact the commons
- All forms of "banking" (making money on money), should be HEAVILY taxed, as it contributes little society.

Arguments in favor of capitalism:

- It's the best way to fuel invention and innovation
- Within limits, hard work should be rewarded

 

[Shadow Wolf]

- Taxes on practices that negatively impact the commons

- It's the best way to fuel invention and innovation

As far as I know that has never been demonstrated or proven. Artistically, art has become so homogenized under Capitalism that it can only be said to stifle artistic creativity. "Actual inventions" we have been coming up with more as a necessity than a profit motive. Creating apps may be profit driven, but developing the electronic communications necessary for those apps filled a need, not profit. Edison was a greedy thieving *****, Telsa was a sponge of curiosities and knowledge and actually did invent society-changing ideas without stealing them from somebody else.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I was wondering a few days ago what would happen if all forms of advertising were banned.

I've often wondered that as well. And then I realize it's easier to imagine the end of the world.

 

[Augustus]

Very few of our "leaders" are addressing this truth, that business values and healthcare values are not compatible.

This is a fundamental problem with for profit healthcare: Overtreat, overcharge, overmedicate

In my part of the non-universal coverage healthcare World, my doctor is employed by a major US multination healthcare provider.

I know for a fact (as she told me) that the doctors are under instructions to boost profits whenever possible. An extra test here and there, the more expensive option for drugs, only prescribe for the in house pharmacy which charges 10-500% more an it should for various things.

Most people don't care as their insurance pays for it. Most people don't ask any questions and will do what the doctor says.

Financially incentivising people to act against the patient's best interests is not a good thing imo.

 

[BSM1]

I was wondering a few days ago what would happen if all forms of advertising were banned.

Then you probably never would have heard of this forum; or purchased the computer you use to opine here, for that matter.

 

[Stevicus]

I just heard this claim on NPR's Sunday weekend edition.

I think this is a REALLY powerful perspective. Big business is running much of healthcare in the U.S. and this fact seems to be "the elephant in the room" as the debates concerning the ACA vs. the AHCA, rage in Washington. Very few of our "leaders" are addressing this truth, that business values and healthcare values are not compatible.

By definition, when all of our leaders ignore this problem, what they debate on the topic will be suspect.

Yep, I've been saying the same thing all along, even back when the ACA was first debated.

The way I see it, if they really want to impose laissez-faire capitalism in the healthcare market, then they have to remove any and all constraints and regulations. Among other things, this would mean that the "war on drugs" would have to come to a screeching halt, since open availability of drugs would be necessary in a free and open healthcare marketplace. No more prescriptions either - everything would be over the counter and available for sale. It would be sold alongside Magical Mystery Elixir which would cure most ailments.

Come to think of it, why should anyone need a license to practice medicine? If someone wants to do brain surgery out of their garage, let them, and let the buyer beware.

Or they could have more do-it-yourself manuals, like Chilton makes manuals for do-it-yourself auto mechanics. They have easy step-by-step instructions.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I just heard this claim on NPR's Sunday weekend edition.

I think this is a REALLY powerful perspective. Big business is running much of healthcare in the U.S. and this fact seems to be "the elephant in the room" as the debates concerning the ACA vs. the AHCA, rage in Washington. Very few of our "leaders" are addressing this truth, that business values and healthcare values are not compatible.

By definition, when all of our leaders ignore this problem, what they debate on the topic will be suspect.

The entire world is based off a monetary system. Healthcare cannot be excluded. There's nothing free to even consider. Money has to come from somewhere to pay for it all.

Now addressing all the waste and greed that permeated the health-care industry itself can be a different story when it comes down to affordability.

 

[icehorse]

As far as I know that has never been demonstrated or proven. Artistically, art has become so homogenized under Capitalism that it can only be said to stifle artistic creativity. "Actual inventions" we have been coming up with more as a necessity than a profit motive. Creating apps may be profit driven, but developing the electronic communications necessary for those apps filled a need, not profit. Edison was a greedy thieving *****, Telsa was a sponge of curiosities and knowledge and actually did invent society-changing ideas without stealing them from somebody else.

I'll cite Xerox PARC as an excellent example of invention. And then NASA and the JPL. As for innovations how about Apple?

 

[Rival]

The entire world is based off a monetary system. Healthcare cannot be excluded. There's nothing free to even consider. Money has to come from somewhere to pay for it all.

The difference is this

 

[Twilight Hue]

[QUOTE="Rival],

[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't disagree but as any basic course in economics teaches, "savings" in one place, mirrors debt in another place.

 

[columbus]

Big business is running much of healthcare in the U.S. and this fact seems to be "the elephant in the room" as the debates concerning the ACA vs. the AHCA, rage in Washington.

This is why I despised ACA from the moment Obama proposed it.

It keeps and subsidizes the single worst problem with USA healthcare system.
Capitalism.

In a Capitalist system the top priority is profit. Improvement to the human situation is a possible side effect, but the goal is profit. If Ford Motor Company could make more money producing cell phones, abortifacients, or lawn care, it would be the Capitalist duty of the Board of directors of Ford to change over all the production plants to the more profitable endeavors.

The problem with USA healthcare is that in a Capitalist system healthy people is a side effect of maximizing profits. Maximizing profits is the true goal. ACA didn't change that. It just forces people to buy a product that they don't want from a for-profit company, pay a fine, or let the government subsidize the for-profit company.
It kept the worst aspects of the USA healthcare system, without using what could be the advantages of government controlled payments, like requiring Eli Lilly to justify the price that they charge and getting the product from someone else who is less profitable if they don't.
ACA didn't address the single biggest reason that USA healthcare is substandard, by first world standards. We pay more and get less than any comparable country.
Because what matters is not health, it's profit.

This fact is probably why the current Republican regime can't pass any legislation overturning Obamacare. Obama already put the Republican alternative to Universal Health Care in place.
They don't have anything better to offer. So they do a bunch of grandstanding and accomplish nothing. The Republicans got nearly everything they wanted in Obamacare. Now, after railing against it for years, they need to explain and replace. But they can't, because Obamacare is the Republican healthcare reform.
Tom