4 ms·

How does this definition fit with having multiple private entities offering the same service and competing in the same market? It doesn't have to be state contr

How does this definition fit with having multiple private entities offering the same service and competing in the same market? It doesn't have to be state controlled and forced onto everybody. Is a small subset of the community considered "community as a whole"? How about when multiple independent subsets pay different prices for different services? If you are getting a discount from you employer for your own products and services (cheaper Windows license as a MS employee) does this imply a socialist setup?

geggam 8y ago
Everyone in society is paying increased healthcare costs which can be traced directly to insurance overhead. Check out the doctors who take cash only https://www.moneycrashers.com/cash-only-doctors-no-insurance/ https://www.moneycrashers.com/cash-only-doctors-no-insurance...
- close04 8y ago
  The whole society pays for everything that is shared. Like roads. Or White House. Expensive cars and plane tickets subsidize cheap ones. The reason costs go up is because in some countries someone sees health insurance more as an opportunity to line their pockets since there is less transparency on how the money is spent and the pool is so big it offers temptation. But this is a problem of implementation, not the system’s concept. This is corruption where “negotiations” with healthcare providers and pharma are more about commissions and bribes so the actual costs don’t matter. Same as with the road building I mentioned above. Is rod building soacialist?
dominicr 8y ago
In this instance the companies aren’t competing, they’re price aligning. As the article points out, a competitor launched their product at exactly the same price. That’s not competition, it’s price fixing. The article is about how companies are trying to avoid anticompetitive investigations by putting the exact same product in a different box and selling it for less but only to a smaller market. The definition of socialism is complex and fluid so finding a perfect match is tricky but I do agree that in principle there are many practices between states and businesses that would be, in the US at least, shouted down as “socialist” if they were instead between the state and individuals.
- close04 8y ago
  This seems to be less of a problem in other parts of the world. Which is why I said it's a problem with the implementation, not the concept of the system. Where I live different insurance providers offer different conditions. So depending on your needs and situation you would definitely find one offer far better than another. While there may be a "fixing" component hidden somewhere the system works very well and the result is both lower bills or even none for the patients, and lower bills for the insurance company. You don't see situations where the insurance would pay exorbitant amounts to the hospital because somehow applying a band-aid ended up costing hundreds [0]. Just because a system has a social component of responsibility doesn't make it socialist. It might just make it more useful and efficient. [0] https://www.vox.com/2016/5/13/11606760/emergency-facility-fees-american-health-care https://www.vox.com/2016/5/13/11606760/emergency-facility-fe...

geggam 8y ago

Everyone in society is paying increased healthcare costs which can be traced directly to insurance overhead. Check out the doctors who take cash only https://www.moneycrashers.com/cash-only-doctors-no-insurance/ https://www.moneycrashers.com/cash-only-doctors-no-insurance...

close04 8y ago
The whole society pays for everything that is shared. Like roads. Or White House. Expensive cars and plane tickets subsidize cheap ones. The reason costs go up is because in some countries someone sees health insurance more as an opportunity to line their pockets since there is less transparency on how the money is spent and the pool is so big it offers temptation. But this is a problem of implementation, not the system’s concept. This is corruption where “negotiations” with healthcare providers and pharma are more about commissions and bribes so the actual costs don’t matter. Same as with the road building I mentioned above. Is rod building soacialist?

dominicr 8y ago

In this instance the companies aren’t competing, they’re price aligning. As the article points out, a competitor launched their product at exactly the same price. That’s not competition, it’s price fixing. The article is about how companies are trying to avoid anticompetitive investigations by putting the exact same product in a different box and selling it for less but only to a smaller market. The definition of socialism is complex and fluid so finding a perfect match is tricky but I do agree that in principle there are many practices between states and businesses that would be, in the US at least, shouted down as “socialist” if they were instead between the state and individuals.

close04 8y ago
This seems to be less of a problem in other parts of the world. Which is why I said it's a problem with the implementation, not the concept of the system. Where I live different insurance providers offer different conditions. So depending on your needs and situation you would definitely find one offer far better than another. While there may be a "fixing" component hidden somewhere the system works very well and the result is both lower bills or even none for the patients, and lower bills for the insurance company. You don't see situations where the insurance would pay exorbitant amounts to the hospital because somehow applying a band-aid ended up costing hundreds [0]. Just because a system has a social component of responsibility doesn't make it socialist. It might just make it more useful and efficient. [0] https://www.vox.com/2016/5/13/11606760/emergency-facility-fees-american-health-care https://www.vox.com/2016/5/13/11606760/emergency-facility-fe...