Business values are not compatible with Healthcare values

[YmirGF]

I think you are confusing capitalism with capital investment. The difference is that capitalism is an economic system that gives all the economic decision-making power to the capital investor. And in a culture where money has come to represent well-being, that means the capital investor is making all the decision relevant to well-being based on his singular desire to maximize the return on the capital he's invested. This is an irrational and dysfunctional methodology, which is why in the wealthiest nation of Earth, the general well-being of the people living in it is declining progressively and dramatically.

The only way to resolve this is to stop allowing the capital investors make decisions regarding the well-being of the human beings living within the economic system. And that means the end of 'capitalism'. It does not, however, have to mean the end of capital investment. Nor do it mean that the only other alternative is communist socialism. It simply means that everyone involved in a commercial enterprise needs to be represented when decisions are being made regarding that commercial enterprise. It also means that not all social enterprise should be engaged in for commercial profit. Health care being one of these.

An interesting view, @PureX

I'm not sure I agree on the causation angle, but your post is certainly food for thought.

 

[Sunstone]

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

People would go back to relying on word of mouth, I suppose. Like they've done for thousands of years. Meanwhile, I'd bet that overall consumption would decrease.

 

[icehorse]

No doubt. But it's also why I bring up Soviet Russia. If anything, I would say a profit incentive for inventiveness may have potential in those who are good at seeing problems and issues and coming up with solutions that are not necessarily practical and, obviously, will require some new product to address the problem. But, other than that, I don't see a great potential for driving artistic innovation (and, contrary, the past few decades strongly suggest is stifles artistic creativity), driving scientific innovation (so many left such strong evidence they were driven by science - or war, something that really drives inventiveness, including NASA), and of course it won't drive innovation for creating pragmatic solutions for an issue like the steam engine did. And of course we know the Romans, Egyptians, and Greeks and others were inventing stuff and probably even had inventions that have been completely lost to time. It's why I doubt this idea of profit being the best way to motivate and drive inventiveness, and see it as nothing more than Capitalist propaganda. It may drive creativeness to create menial and distractive junk, but in regards to inventiveness that had meaningful and significant impacts on society, I would have to say necessity and war are the two biggest and most efficient motivators. Throughout the duration of our history, we find time and time again, we find need and war driving innovation, with educated urban settlements being able to create more novel inventions (such as Roman plumbing and baths). Which probably creates the third biggest driver, our sense of novelty and appreciation of it.

Thanks SW.

First, I think we ought to keep technical invention separate from artistic invention, but perhaps not?

As far as the arts go, I that in those periods of our history when our capitalism was in a state of decent balance, funding for the arts has been good. When it's not good, I don't think it's so much a knock on capitalism in general as it is on the partisanship of the moment.

As for what motivates invention and innovation... I think you make some good points when it comes to invention. I think I'd agree that a lot of invention is not motivated by financial gains. I could go with that as a generalization. But I think innovation (that which follows and refines invention), is probably mostly motivated by the financials.

 

[idav]

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.

I mostly agree but there is a bit of conspiracy in there. I'm not entirely sure we are so corrupt that we would squash a cure just to sell some cancer drug indefinitely. I mean is a cure really less profitable that masking symptoms. Reminds me of how people are weary of car mechanics like they would put a ticking bomb in your car to make you come back.

However the whole fact of profiting off of health really is a slippery slope from the get go. Maybe cures can't be free but people needn't go bankrupt getting healthy. The US is highly over priced and we don't even get the bang for our buck, why the heck would anyone want to pay extravagant prices for mediocre service.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I could go with that as a generalization. But I think innovation (that which follows and refines invention), is probably mostly motivated by the financials.

I doubt even that, as many hobbyist and artists invest tons of money and time into their passions, creating all sorts of wonderful gadgets and gizmos and oddities, with most being firmly aware that they'll never even be able to pay the bills doing it. Not that I doubt it happens, but I've seen no actual evidence to support the claim.

 

[icehorse]

I doubt even that, as many hobbyist and artists invest tons of money and time into their passions, creating all sorts of wonderful gadgets and gizmos and oddities, with most being firmly aware that they'll never even be able to pay the bills doing it. Not that I doubt it happens, but I've seen no actual evidence to support the claim.

But in the business world, innovation is what allows companies to create competitive advantages, right? So we can here things like: "Because of the R&D our company performed, our widget is 37% shinier, 12% faster, and uses only 87% as much energy."

 

[Yerda]

But in the business world, innovation is what allows companies to create competitive advantages, right? So we can here things like: "Because of the R&D our company performed, our widget is 37% shinier, 12% faster, and uses only 87% as much energy."

Most big companies seem to draw their competitive advantage from monopolistic practice, externalising costs and PR (i.e. lies) (and also some rent seeking).

That's not to criticise trade or innovation - they're both very important as far as I can tell. It's just getting a bit boring listening to market types repeat the same vague myths supporting their interests.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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.

Letting politicians run health care has the same problems as letting them run any industry anywhere in the world- inefficiency, lack of productivity, little practical understanding, waste- that doesn't help anybody- if you don't like self interested monopolies- bear in mind that a government is the largest self interested monopoly there is.

And that's why Big business and Big government go hand in hand- in a freer market you reduce this collusion, and more/smaller businesses can thrive and compete more efficiently-

Big government health care also creates terrible inequality- as in the UK- you get one bargain basement healthcare coverage for the poor- and anyone who can afford to go private does.- that split was already happening with Obamacare, with doctors and facilities opting out altogether to cater to more affluent patients

 

[Yerda]

Letting politicians run health care has the same problems as letting them run any industry anywhere in the world- inefficiency, lack of productivity, little practical understanding, waste- that doesn't help anybody- if you don't like self interested monopolies- bear in mind that a government is the largest self interested monopoly there is.

And that's why Big business and Big government go hand in hand- in a freer market you reduce this collusion, and more/smaller businesses can thrive and compete more efficiently

/fantasy

Big government health care also creates terrible inequality- as in the UK- you get one bargain basement healthcare coverage for the poor- and anyone who can afford to go private does.- that split was already happening with Obamacare, with doctors and facilities opting out altogether to cater to more affluent patients

Ok. Here's the other side of the argument.

1. The NHS doesn't create inequality - it reduces it.
2. The gap between NHS care and private is smaller than no care and private.
3. Our system wipes America's all over the floor and is still cheaper per head.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

/fantasy

Ok. Here's the other side of the argument.

1. The NHS doesn't create inequality - it reduces it.
2. The gap between NHS care and private is smaller than no care and private.
3. Our system wipes America's all over the floor and is still cheaper per head.

I think you'd really have to go through each system as a patient to get a practical comparison, & I'm lucky enough to not have much of that experience- but I do have family in the UK who were very keen on the NHS- ideologically until something serious came up- they went private pretty quick to skip the long wait times and get better care - not everyone can afford to do that.

Similarly many Canadians who can afford it travel to the US for serious matters, creating one system for the poor inevitably creates another for the wealthy

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And that's why Big business and Big government go hand in hand- in a freer market you reduce this collusion, and more/smaller businesses can thrive and compete more efficiently-

Yup. Freer to be denied coverage over a pre-existing condition. Freer to forgo treatment because you can't even afford to visit the doctor. And freer to worry about medical debt and where you may sleep if you have a major medical emergency.

 

[Yerda]

I think you'd really have to go through each system as a patient to get a practical comparison, & I'm lucky enough to not have much of that experience- but I do have family in the UK who were very keen on the NHS- ideologically until something serious came up- they went private pretty quick to skip the long wait times and get better care - not everyone can afford to do that.

If you have the money to spend on healthcare then by all means go wild. However, no-one I know could afford fully private cancer treatment or a lifetime of medication for an autoimmune disorder without the protection of the national insurance scheme.

Similarly many Canadians who can afford it travel to the US for serious matters, creating one system for the poor inevitably creates another for the wealthy

The system for the wealthy is always going to be there. Without a comprehensive national system people who don't have millions lying around are going to be completely wiped out financially by any stroke of bad luck.

 

[Thief]

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.

I love NPR

they have reported, we Americans spend 9,000dollars per yr and live to 78
other countries spend half of that figure and live longer

 

[icehorse]

Most big companies seem to draw their competitive advantage from monopolistic practice, externalising costs and PR (i.e. lies) (and also some rent seeking).

That's not to criticise trade or innovation - they're both very important as far as I can tell. It's just getting a bit boring listening to market types repeat the same vague myths supporting their interests.

I'm not issuing any sort of blanket defense of business practices. A lot of those practices strike me as unethical. That said, there is a lot of innovation that occurs, and for the most part it occurs in capitalist societies. And I'm not saying capitalism is perfect - it definitely can run amok if not monitored and tweaked.

 

[icehorse]

Letting politicians run health care has the same problems as letting them run any industry anywhere in the world- inefficiency, lack of productivity, little practical understanding, waste- that doesn't help anybody- if you don't like self interested monopolies- bear in mind that a government is the largest self interested monopoly there is.

And that's why Big business and Big government go hand in hand- in a freer market you reduce this collusion, and more/smaller businesses can thrive and compete more efficiently-

Big government health care also creates terrible inequality- as in the UK- you get one bargain basement healthcare coverage for the poor- and anyone who can afford to go private does.- that split was already happening with Obamacare, with doctors and facilities opting out altogether to cater to more affluent patients

I'm not sure I buy that it's this black and white. What IS clear to me however is that some services ought not be "for profit", and healthcare would be near the top of that list. There is just a built-in tension.

 

[metis]

The for-profit system we have here in the States is overly expensive and killing us-- sometimes literally.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm not sure I buy that it's this black and white. What IS clear to me however is that some services ought not be "for profit", and healthcare would be near the top of that list. There is just a built-in tension.

I agree it's not black and white, but just giving the other side of the argument.

I think we both agree that people personally getting rich off other people's poor health, strikes us as intuitively immoral right?

But I'm sure we also agree that IF a corporate profit- above and beyond salaries paid to the corporation's employees- goes to R&D and then in turn life saving technology & drugs- that in itself is a good thing yes?

But 'not for profit' is an interesting designation- because it means no corporate profit, only personal profit for the employees- which furthermore qualifies the entity for extra tax breaks.

It's not clear to me that the latter is somehow more beneficial for healthcare or moral

 

[icehorse]

I agree it's not black and white, but just giving the other side of the argument.

I think we both agree that people personally getting rich off other people's poor health, strikes us as intuitively immoral right?

But I'm sure we also agree that IF a corporate profit- above and beyond salaries paid to the corporation's employees- goes to R&D and then in turn life saving technology & drugs- that in itself is a good thing yes?

But 'not for profit' is an interesting designation- because it means no corporate profit, only personal profit for the employees- which furthermore qualifies the entity for extra tax breaks.

It's not clear to me that the latter is somehow more beneficial for healthcare or moral

Well my stance about capitalism in general is that I'm for it, but it needs checks and balances. In the case of something like healthcare (or running prisons), it seems really hard to put the proper checks and balances into place. Not impossible, just really hard. Of course the people who provide healthcare and do R&D ought to get really good compensation. But the reality (as I understand it), is that it's not the doctors or even the hospitals that are the most egregious profiteers, it's the middlemen who actually add little value.