4 ms·

Collective ownership of means of production doesn't work, now proven for 1000001th time.

by baybal2 6y ago

amp180 6y ago
I don't think the communists want an investment fund...
- baybal2 6y ago
  If you think so, I suggest you to actually read what Marx wrote. Shared, and collectively owned/managed means of productions is exactly that.
tw04 6y ago
By your definition, Feudal England was "collective ownership". A handful of executives having ownership of a company != collective ownership, that's closer to an Oligarchy than anything.
- zebrafish 6y ago
  This article does make me wonder about the practicality of Medicare for All. From this example, it seems like a great way to line hospital executives’ pockets with taxpayer money. Is the goal to institute a Medicare for All system alongside requirements for everyone to move to a not-for-profit model?
  - tertius 6y ago
    Non-profit hospitals still charge normal people insane prices for nothing. Non profit does not insulate us from predatory practices. Hospitals want to grow and want to stay solvent (regardless if they're for or non-profit). $400 Ibuprofen it is! Price transparency is one solution for this.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    It's a very good question. It's why M4A was always a pragmatic centrist compromise, when really to get maximum efficiency you need an NHS. It's weird that Romneycare ended up playing the part of the radical communist bugabear for the right as premiums skyrocket and more profits are being made than ever. VA hospitals for all would be the real lefty dream.
    - fakedang 6y ago
      Come to the NHS in the UK to see maximum operational efficiency. Pretty efficient if you died waiting for your turn in line, or because the government decided that your ailment isn't severe enough to warrant the use of that blockbuster therapy.
  - jellicle 6y ago
    If the government is the only payer, they can squeeze the excess profit out of the system year over year. "Hey, we noticed you pay your executives $25 million a year. We decided to cut the executive pay allowance this year." "Hey, we noticed you're paying your shareholders 50% of your revenue. You seem pretty profitable, so we're cutting your reimbursement rates for all procedures this year." Such a system is eminently practical. What's not practical is the current US system.
arethuza 6y ago
The UK NHS was founded as an avowedly socialist endeavour and I fail to see what is fundamentally wrong with it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneurin_Bevan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneurin_Bevan NB I'm not claiming that the NHS is perfect but I suspect most of its problems actually stem from management consultants and politicians rather than medics or patients.
- baybal2 6y ago
  NHS is not "means of production" by any extend, unlike the hospital cos, even if they are "non-profit" on the paper for as long as they are de-jure joint stock corporations with board, investors, and other stock company nonsense.
  - arethuza 6y ago
    Not sure I agree that the ownership/control structure for an organisation (in this case a hospital) determines whether it is "means of production" or not?
    - baybal2 6y ago
      If it can be used as such (make money/bought/sold,) and legalities allow (powerless company charter not withstanding,) it will be used as such.
- jokethrowaway 6y ago
  NHS (and Europe healthcare in general) is not socialism. It's part of a social democracy. But I see your point. Having experienced healthcare in a few European countries (including the NHS), and having several doctor relatives, I don't think it's a good deal. The cost of healthcare is really high, you pay a lot of taxes, the hospitals are subpar quality, you have to queue / wait for hours / days / weeks / months and the service provided is rationed. The government decide which tests you get to do according to their playbook. Basically if you want something done quickly you need to pay - but you're already paying for public health in taxes. My doctor relatives are often skeptical of the the government provided guidelines on how to treat people, but they still follow them because if you don't you'll be liable for whatever happens. The most recent and incredible case is the use of corticosteroids for covid patients. My doctor relative and colleagues wanted to use them in some cases but they were told not to and to follow the guidelines. Now that corticosteroids are being recommended, they've been told to don't talk to the newspapers, because they fear people thinking it was a state sanctioned mass murder. Some more examples of how public health care sucks in everyday life: - I had an unbearable stomach pain and after self diagnosing myself a range of potential issues (some of which needed tests to be proven) I went to the hospital. At the time I was switching jobs so I didn't have private insurance setup. After waiting for 4hrs the doctor told me that because I was under 40 I wouldn't get any tests done and she told me to go and buy some stomach medicines. The pain was unbearable, so I setup my private insurance, did some test and I ended up having a stomach ulcer which needed surgical treatment. So much for public health care, I could have died. - My wife replaced teeth fillings via NHS (it's "free" for new moms), we thought it was something simple enough that we wouldn't have problems. So we waited for months for an appointment and got it done. After a couple of weeks the filling fell off - and the same thing repeated three times. Eventually we went back to our usual dentist and she didn't have problems with her new filling.

Collective ownership of means of production doesn't work, now proven for 1000001th time.

amp180 6y ago

I don't think the communists want an investment fund...

baybal2 6y ago
If you think so, I suggest you to actually read what Marx wrote. Shared, and collectively owned/managed means of productions is exactly that.

tw04 6y ago

By your definition, Feudal England was "collective ownership". A handful of executives having ownership of a company != collective ownership, that's closer to an Oligarchy than anything.

zebrafish 6y ago
This article does make me wonder about the practicality of Medicare for All. From this example, it seems like a great way to line hospital executives’ pockets with taxpayer money. Is the goal to institute a Medicare for All system alongside requirements for everyone to move to a not-for-profit model?
- tertius 6y ago
  Non-profit hospitals still charge normal people insane prices for nothing. Non profit does not insulate us from predatory practices. Hospitals want to grow and want to stay solvent (regardless if they're for or non-profit). $400 Ibuprofen it is! Price transparency is one solution for this.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  It's a very good question. It's why M4A was always a pragmatic centrist compromise, when really to get maximum efficiency you need an NHS. It's weird that Romneycare ended up playing the part of the radical communist bugabear for the right as premiums skyrocket and more profits are being made than ever. VA hospitals for all would be the real lefty dream.
  - fakedang 6y ago
    Come to the NHS in the UK to see maximum operational efficiency. Pretty efficient if you died waiting for your turn in line, or because the government decided that your ailment isn't severe enough to warrant the use of that blockbuster therapy.
- jellicle 6y ago
  If the government is the only payer, they can squeeze the excess profit out of the system year over year. "Hey, we noticed you pay your executives $25 million a year. We decided to cut the executive pay allowance this year." "Hey, we noticed you're paying your shareholders 50% of your revenue. You seem pretty profitable, so we're cutting your reimbursement rates for all procedures this year." Such a system is eminently practical. What's not practical is the current US system.

arethuza 6y ago

The UK NHS was founded as an avowedly socialist endeavour and I fail to see what is fundamentally wrong with it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneurin_Bevan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneurin_Bevan NB I'm not claiming that the NHS is perfect but I suspect most of its problems actually stem from management consultants and politicians rather than medics or patients.

baybal2 6y ago
NHS is not "means of production" by any extend, unlike the hospital cos, even if they are "non-profit" on the paper for as long as they are de-jure joint stock corporations with board, investors, and other stock company nonsense.
- arethuza 6y ago
  Not sure I agree that the ownership/control structure for an organisation (in this case a hospital) determines whether it is "means of production" or not?
  - baybal2 6y ago
    If it can be used as such (make money/bought/sold,) and legalities allow (powerless company charter not withstanding,) it will be used as such.
jokethrowaway 6y ago
NHS (and Europe healthcare in general) is not socialism. It's part of a social democracy. But I see your point. Having experienced healthcare in a few European countries (including the NHS), and having several doctor relatives, I don't think it's a good deal. The cost of healthcare is really high, you pay a lot of taxes, the hospitals are subpar quality, you have to queue / wait for hours / days / weeks / months and the service provided is rationed. The government decide which tests you get to do according to their playbook. Basically if you want something done quickly you need to pay - but you're already paying for public health in taxes. My doctor relatives are often skeptical of the the government provided guidelines on how to treat people, but they still follow them because if you don't you'll be liable for whatever happens. The most recent and incredible case is the use of corticosteroids for covid patients. My doctor relative and colleagues wanted to use them in some cases but they were told not to and to follow the guidelines. Now that corticosteroids are being recommended, they've been told to don't talk to the newspapers, because they fear people thinking it was a state sanctioned mass murder. Some more examples of how public health care sucks in everyday life: - I had an unbearable stomach pain and after self diagnosing myself a range of potential issues (some of which needed tests to be proven) I went to the hospital. At the time I was switching jobs so I didn't have private insurance setup. After waiting for 4hrs the doctor told me that because I was under 40 I wouldn't get any tests done and she told me to go and buy some stomach medicines. The pain was unbearable, so I setup my private insurance, did some test and I ended up having a stomach ulcer which needed surgical treatment. So much for public health care, I could have died. - My wife replaced teeth fillings via NHS (it's "free" for new moms), we thought it was something simple enough that we wouldn't have problems. So we waited for months for an appointment and got it done. After a couple of weeks the filling fell off - and the same thing repeated three times. Eventually we went back to our usual dentist and she didn't have problems with her new filling.