3 ms·

Why is that a ridiculous statement? I work in the system. The incentives are misaligned at best.

aceazzameen 3y ago
Definitely misaligned. The need for unlimited growth and profit will never align with healthcare, who's goal should be to keep as many people as healthy and out of the system as possible.
- richbell 3y ago
  Goldman Sachs asks in biotech research report: 'Is curing patients a sustainable business model?' https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/04/11/goldman-asks-is-curing-patients-a-sustainable-business-model.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/04/11/goldman-asks-is-curing-p...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- oatmeal1 3y ago
  The need for unlimited growth and profit created incredible technologies and medications that keep us healthy.
  - drekk 3y ago
    No, government R&D dollars did. Most of the significant advanced were "too risky" for corporations to view them as growth opportunities. Even though taxpayers fund the studies they're charged not only for the products but to read the results.
    - oatmeal1 3y ago
      Government is a double-edged sword. Classifying drugs like psilocybin as class 1, meaning researchers couldn't even study it. Also, 13 year approval process makes it extremely expensive to try to get a drug to market. Of course government R&D dollars are needed!
  - jliptzin 3y ago
    What about private prisons? Those are okay too I guess, keep growing the prison population quarter after quarter to keep shareholders happy?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > need for unlimited growth and profit will never align with healthcare You’re extending concepts from one part of finance to another without context. Leveraged buyouts, the OG behemoth of PE, are not necessarily based on unlimited growth or profits. They’re one of the few models where steady-state (or even declining) profits sing. (Not arguing for PE ownership of hospitals, by the way. I think they should be cooperatives.)
  - im3w1l 3y ago
    So I'm just thinking here but I think leveraged buyouts can lead to moral decay. Like consider a business. It's making 9.5m profit per year. By engaging in various unethical practices that could be increased to 10.5m per year. But why bother? Why give up your morals when it barely makes a difference? Now someone does a leveraged buyout. The business has to pay 10m a year to service the debt. Now it's suddenly losing 500k a year. If things continue they might have to shut down. Think of poor Joe, his wife just had a child. Could he find another good job in this economy? But... if we bend the rules just a tiny bit, we could turn that loss into a profit... It's for the greater good, isn't it?
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > making 9.5m profit per year. By engaging in various unethical practices that could be increased to 10.5m per year This is orthogonal to leveraged buyouts or even capitalism; it’s maximising personal gains without thought to broader effects. > But... if we bend the rules just a tiny bit, we could turn that loss into a profit... It's for the greater good, isn't it? This is a fairer critique. LBOs impose pressure. But this also happens in any other constrained environment. It’s difficult to say why that leads some people to innovate and become disciplined and others to cut corners. The difference between an LBO and unlevered buyout is the financing. That, in turn, means who can finance it. Arguing leverage causes moral decay is, at its core, an argument that ownership of these businesses should be constrained to the already wealthy; it’s aristocratic morality. Grounding my scepticism of your claims is that most LBOs create value. They create employment. And for many businesses with low or no growth prospects, they’re the only way for them to persist. That said, they’re daring and glamorous and that means they get written and talked about more than e.g. municipal bonds.

Definitely misaligned. The need for unlimited growth and profit will never align with healthcare, who's goal should be to keep as many people as healthy and out of the system as possible.

richbell 3y ago
Goldman Sachs asks in biotech research report: 'Is curing patients a sustainable business model?' https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/04/11/goldman-asks-is-curing-patients-a-sustainable-business-model.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/04/11/goldman-asks-is-curing-p...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
oatmeal1 3y ago
The need for unlimited growth and profit created incredible technologies and medications that keep us healthy.
- drekk 3y ago
  No, government R&D dollars did. Most of the significant advanced were "too risky" for corporations to view them as growth opportunities. Even though taxpayers fund the studies they're charged not only for the products but to read the results.
  - oatmeal1 3y ago
    Government is a double-edged sword. Classifying drugs like psilocybin as class 1, meaning researchers couldn't even study it. Also, 13 year approval process makes it extremely expensive to try to get a drug to market. Of course government R&D dollars are needed!
- jliptzin 3y ago
  What about private prisons? Those are okay too I guess, keep growing the prison population quarter after quarter to keep shareholders happy?
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> need for unlimited growth and profit will never align with healthcare You’re extending concepts from one part of finance to another without context. Leveraged buyouts, the OG behemoth of PE, are not necessarily based on unlimited growth or profits. They’re one of the few models where steady-state (or even declining) profits sing. (Not arguing for PE ownership of hospitals, by the way. I think they should be cooperatives.)
- im3w1l 3y ago
  So I'm just thinking here but I think leveraged buyouts can lead to moral decay. Like consider a business. It's making 9.5m profit per year. By engaging in various unethical practices that could be increased to 10.5m per year. But why bother? Why give up your morals when it barely makes a difference? Now someone does a leveraged buyout. The business has to pay 10m a year to service the debt. Now it's suddenly losing 500k a year. If things continue they might have to shut down. Think of poor Joe, his wife just had a child. Could he find another good job in this economy? But... if we bend the rules just a tiny bit, we could turn that loss into a profit... It's for the greater good, isn't it?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > making 9.5m profit per year. By engaging in various unethical practices that could be increased to 10.5m per year This is orthogonal to leveraged buyouts or even capitalism; it’s maximising personal gains without thought to broader effects. > But... if we bend the rules just a tiny bit, we could turn that loss into a profit... It's for the greater good, isn't it? This is a fairer critique. LBOs impose pressure. But this also happens in any other constrained environment. It’s difficult to say why that leads some people to innovate and become disciplined and others to cut corners. The difference between an LBO and unlevered buyout is the financing. That, in turn, means who can finance it. Arguing leverage causes moral decay is, at its core, an argument that ownership of these businesses should be constrained to the already wealthy; it’s aristocratic morality. Grounding my scepticism of your claims is that most LBOs create value. They create employment. And for many businesses with low or no growth prospects, they’re the only way for them to persist. That said, they’re daring and glamorous and that means they get written and talked about more than e.g. municipal bonds.