4 ms·

The health industry as a whole is insane. I support the use of regulation and law where it ensures safety and efficacy but in the U.S. it's currently a patent a

The health industry as a whole is insane. I support the use of regulation and law where it ensures safety and efficacy but in the U.S. it's currently a patent and legal minefield. So much of it comes directly from special interests who want gatekeeping to keep out new/disruptive competition.

smaudet 2y ago
On the other side, as a consumer, I don't really want "new/disruptive competition" - I want stability and a legal guarantee my rights aren't being trod all over. Large companies e.g. Google/Apple are just inherently untrustworthy in this regards, smaller overseas ones are no better (little to no regulation). So please, no, stay the ** out of my health, thanks.
- IOT_Apprentice 2y ago
  Google, Meta et al ARE FAR worse than anything might complain about Apple. Between the sleep apnea and hearing aid/hearing loss features you should be applauding these features to the world. As a consumer I have family members that will be leveraging these features immediately, including myself.
- a_vanderbilt 2y ago
  You can have gains in both today if certain issues are addressed. Innovation doesn't mean a lack of liability or responsibility for negligence. In the U.S. you already have relatively minimal rights in healthcare. Your stability and legal guarantees are already compromised compared to your worldly neighbors. I too distrust tech companies in healthcare due to their differing motivations and organizational cultures. I want the red tape to go away, but I also want strong regulations and safety nets to ensure the drugs and devices we are prescribing to people are effective and safe.
  - smaudet 2y ago
    > I want the red tape to go away, but I also want strong regulations and safety nets I'm not certain those goals can be both met. You can have innovation, but some red tape is necessary. Of course you could get into arguing that "not all red tape is made equal", but deterring cheap "innovation" from a tech shop trying to make a quick buck is absolutely necessary and useful. The barriers exists for very good reasons, not only as you said they have a different motivation and organizational culture, but they have different qualifications.
- jjk166 2y ago
  That's the cool thing about competition though - you can continue spending your money on the current super expensive option if you like. But others who may not value that stability can choose something else. Personally, I consider big pharma companies the absolute least trustworthy, and I would never choose to purchase anything from them if I would not literally otherwise die. Regulations are not fundamentally bad, but the current situation is obviously a case of regulatory capture.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    When it comes to healthcare, that's a lot more complicated though. Wider competition with less control/accuracy will often mean that fads get more profitable: for instance "gluten free" sells enough that it makes sense for random makers to slap the label on their product even if they don't really care to follow the most rigorous rules. Letting the market decide will result in the minority (those actually affected by the products) to get shafted, as more and more companies will move to the lower standards they can get by, instead of keeping high priced products that don't sell as well. That doesn't mean that the status quo is great, but at least we need to be pretty cautious on the direction we want to go. "Let's just do something and see how it goes" isn't a desirable strategy when people are at risk.
    - jjk166 2y ago
      You can have the regulators choose who can slap a "gluten free" sticker on their product but still give people the freedom to buy products without the sticker. Competition does not mean getting rid of or even lowering standards, just that if those standards are misaligned with real people's needs we're not stuck with them. Maintaining a known-flawed status quo is not being cautious. People suffer severely every day from inaccessible medical care. We can always return to the current system if we don't like a change, but until we actually try it we don't even know how much damage the status quo is doing.
- ugh123 2y ago
  So you're cool with the pace of innovation and value-per-cost that existing medical companies provide?
  - BoiledCabbage 2y ago
    Is the alternative the way that Meta and Google treat privacy, or most tech companies treat security? Then sure as rain I am.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  Stability doesn’t always help. For example Phillips had to recall their latest CPAP machines because of disintegrating foam that patients potentially inhaled all night for months, with unknown long term health effects. Who can trust big companies that avoid scrutiny and accountability just due to their size and power?
  - wkat4242 2y ago
    Yeah I have two of those machines that i bought myself (with prescription). It's been 4 years and Phillips has yet to replace them. They also don't answer any kind of contact about it. I'm glad the local authority gave me a resmed but I still want those Phillipses replaced.
- fragmede 2y ago
  Who do you want in your health though? Someone's gonna be in there, so how do they develop trust, or is anybody in that space automatically bad?

smaudet 2y ago

On the other side, as a consumer, I don't really want "new/disruptive competition" - I want stability and a legal guarantee my rights aren't being trod all over. Large companies e.g. Google/Apple are just inherently untrustworthy in this regards, smaller overseas ones are no better (little to no regulation). So please, no, stay the ** out of my health, thanks.

IOT_Apprentice 2y ago
Google, Meta et al ARE FAR worse than anything might complain about Apple. Between the sleep apnea and hearing aid/hearing loss features you should be applauding these features to the world. As a consumer I have family members that will be leveraging these features immediately, including myself.
a_vanderbilt 2y ago
You can have gains in both today if certain issues are addressed. Innovation doesn't mean a lack of liability or responsibility for negligence. In the U.S. you already have relatively minimal rights in healthcare. Your stability and legal guarantees are already compromised compared to your worldly neighbors. I too distrust tech companies in healthcare due to their differing motivations and organizational cultures. I want the red tape to go away, but I also want strong regulations and safety nets to ensure the drugs and devices we are prescribing to people are effective and safe.
- smaudet 2y ago
  > I want the red tape to go away, but I also want strong regulations and safety nets I'm not certain those goals can be both met. You can have innovation, but some red tape is necessary. Of course you could get into arguing that "not all red tape is made equal", but deterring cheap "innovation" from a tech shop trying to make a quick buck is absolutely necessary and useful. The barriers exists for very good reasons, not only as you said they have a different motivation and organizational culture, but they have different qualifications.
jjk166 2y ago
That's the cool thing about competition though - you can continue spending your money on the current super expensive option if you like. But others who may not value that stability can choose something else. Personally, I consider big pharma companies the absolute least trustworthy, and I would never choose to purchase anything from them if I would not literally otherwise die. Regulations are not fundamentally bad, but the current situation is obviously a case of regulatory capture.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  When it comes to healthcare, that's a lot more complicated though. Wider competition with less control/accuracy will often mean that fads get more profitable: for instance "gluten free" sells enough that it makes sense for random makers to slap the label on their product even if they don't really care to follow the most rigorous rules. Letting the market decide will result in the minority (those actually affected by the products) to get shafted, as more and more companies will move to the lower standards they can get by, instead of keeping high priced products that don't sell as well. That doesn't mean that the status quo is great, but at least we need to be pretty cautious on the direction we want to go. "Let's just do something and see how it goes" isn't a desirable strategy when people are at risk.
  - jjk166 2y ago
    You can have the regulators choose who can slap a "gluten free" sticker on their product but still give people the freedom to buy products without the sticker. Competition does not mean getting rid of or even lowering standards, just that if those standards are misaligned with real people's needs we're not stuck with them. Maintaining a known-flawed status quo is not being cautious. People suffer severely every day from inaccessible medical care. We can always return to the current system if we don't like a change, but until we actually try it we don't even know how much damage the status quo is doing.
ugh123 2y ago
So you're cool with the pace of innovation and value-per-cost that existing medical companies provide?
- BoiledCabbage 2y ago
  Is the alternative the way that Meta and Google treat privacy, or most tech companies treat security? Then sure as rain I am.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Stability doesn’t always help. For example Phillips had to recall their latest CPAP machines because of disintegrating foam that patients potentially inhaled all night for months, with unknown long term health effects. Who can trust big companies that avoid scrutiny and accountability just due to their size and power?
- wkat4242 2y ago
  Yeah I have two of those machines that i bought myself (with prescription). It's been 4 years and Phillips has yet to replace them. They also don't answer any kind of contact about it. I'm glad the local authority gave me a resmed but I still want those Phillipses replaced.
fragmede 2y ago
Who do you want in your health though? Someone's gonna be in there, so how do they develop trust, or is anybody in that space automatically bad?