3 ms·

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 pric

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...