this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2024
8 points (100.0% liked)

LinkedinLunatics

3541 readers
461 users here now

A place to post ridiculous posts from linkedIn.com

(Full transparency.. a mod for this sub happens to work there.. but that doesn't influence his moderation or laughter at a lot of posts.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Are you fucking joking that a hospital is on the stock market? I know, its the company that owns the hospital, but its still fucked up. Should not be allowed.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Why not? Companies that make pharmaceuticals, prosthetics, imaging devices, etc are all on the stock market too, so if hospitals weren't on there, you could build a portfolio to approximate it by buying producers of medical equipment.

The real issue isn't whether something is publicly traded, but collusion between groups to keep prices high. For example, it's mutually beneficial for insurance, hospitals, and medical equipment providers to increase costs. Higher equipment costs means care providers can charge more (what's another few hundred when the bill is in the thousands?), and higher total bills means insurance companies can charge higher premiums (they're usually limited to a certain percent of cost as profit). Hospitals generally don't have direct competitors since it's prohibitively expensive to build one and there's lots of bureaucracy based on "need," so you can't just go next door to an org that's not involved in the collusion.

Here's some YouTube videos about it:

There are lots of viable solutions here, but banning them from the stock market isn't going to solve anything. The first order of business imo is making everything more transparent.

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The real issue is the belief that essential services should make profit. Socialized, regulated Healthcare FTW.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I disagree.

I know it's an anecdote, but I have a coworker that shared an experience moving from Canada to the US, and they said they much prefer the American healthcare system to the Canadian system. This is from the perspective of a relatively well off individual (not rich, just middle to upper middle class), so obviously someone at the bottom end of the income spectrum would have a different opinion.

So my question for people who promote socialized medicine is this: if you could easily afford both, would you prefer socialized or privatized medicine? And why?

I think we have a cost problem, not a structural problem, so we should look at ways of reducing cost before completely changing the structure of our healthcare system. My primary concern is getting insurance away from employers, publicly funding emergency services, and making hospital costs more transparent (e.g. publicly posted price ranges for common procedures). As in, reform the current system, not replace it.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

know it's an anecdote, but I have a coworker that shared an experience moving from Canada to the US, and they said they much prefer the American healthcare system to the Canadian system. This is from the perspective of a relatively well off individual (not rich, just middle to upper middle class), so obviously someone at the bottom end of the income spectrum would have a different opinion.

The problem is that healthcare systems are meant to take care of the entire population, not just the middle class or higher. If you are a moderately healthy and wealthy person, yes the American healthcare system is fine, but that's not exactly the what your entire system should be geared for.

The only reason they like the system is because they are the bread and butter of private insurance. Healthy working adults whom don't require lots of expensive care. However, if they were to developed a chronic illness, or get injured or I'll to the point where they can't maintain their employment....... That's when you get to experience the worst healthcare experience America has to offer.

if you could easily afford both, would you prefer socialized or privatized medicine? And why?

As someone who's had socialized medicine (Tricare) and now currently has "good" private insurance (BCBS ppo), I definitely prefer socialized.

There's no worry that your going to catch an unexpected co-pays, you aren't nickle and dimed for every script or visit. No worrying about out of pocket maximums, yearly deductibles, or lack of specific coverage. You don't have to get specialized insurance for just your eyes and teeth, the benefits go on and on.

I think we have a cost problem, not a structural problem, so we should look at ways of reducing cost before completely changing the structure of our healthcare system.

The cost problem stems from the structural problem. Private insurance steals the ability to effectively collectively bargain for lower prices. It also diverts funding away from the socialized insurance pool of Medicare, which lacks the young healthy subscribers that help stabilize and fund the care for elderly and sick.

Imagine if all the money that private insurance pockets went towards actually caring for people. Imagine if hospitals didn't have to employ a small army of managers and billing agents, just to get paid for services already rendered. Imagine the collective bargaining power that we'd all have if pharmaceutical companies knew there was only one customer in the entire nation.

You give that all away for what? A policy that goes away the moment your employer decides they don't want to pay that much this year? A policy that ties your physical well being to your employment? A policy that terminates your coverage the very moment you need it the most?