3 ms·

>This is not an open market like taxis vs Uber Interesting choice of example. In most places taxis are/weren't an "open market" either but had various laws pre

>This is not an open market like taxis vs Uber Interesting choice of example. In most places taxis are/weren't an "open market" either but had various laws preventing newcomers from providing taxi rides. In many places what Uber did was illegal. Various locales either banned Uber, changed the laws to allow them, or simply didn't enforce the laws that made them illegal.

bonoboTP 2y ago
Yes, even Uber was pushed out in many places with lawfare and jobs reasons. Taxi drivers do have some moderately strong lobby in many places. So just think about taking on doctors... The discussion was never really about which service is better. It was about whose toes they were stepping on. In healthcare you can't take the "asking for forgiveness is easier than permission" route. That's a quick way to jail. In taxiing, it's just some fines that fit the budget. My overall point isn't to argue whether these disruptions are socially beneficial. I'm trying to point at the more neutral observation that who you're taking on and how much power they have will be crucial to the success of a disruptor. It's not just about "product quality" based on some objective dispassionate politics-free scientific benchmarks.
eszed 2y ago
In context, I think GP meant "open" from a sociopolitical point of view. The "taxi-industrial complex" had minimal political power, so Uber was repeatedly able to steamroll the incumbents - exactly as you describe in your final sentence. Medical interests have immense sociopolitical power, so the same playbook won't work. The differences in your positions are merely semantic.
bko 2y ago
Medallion holders had a weaker more fragmented system. If there was a nation wide system, they would have been able to organize better and kill Uber. Considering groups like the AMA literally dictate how many people are allowed to graduate from med school in a given year, the obviously have more control. Furthermore, on the state level there are often "Need Based Laws" that require healthcare providers to obtain approval before establishing or expanding certain healthcare facilities or services. This is unironically designed to prevent unnecessary duplication of healthcare services, control healthcare costs and ensure equitable distribution of healthcare resources. Imagine how expensive it would be if we have two many choices! The cab cartel was more or less city level. Add in the fact that "health care" is much more politically charged and its easy to find useful idiots that want to "protect people's health" that enforcement is a lot easier, they're entirely different.
- musicale 2y ago
  Not all conspiracy theories are false. Good thing most people don't know about this, or they might get really angry at the AMA, perhaps even voting for representatives who might enact laws to reform the system. Fortunately that would never happen.

bonoboTP 2y ago

Yes, even Uber was pushed out in many places with lawfare and jobs reasons. Taxi drivers do have some moderately strong lobby in many places. So just think about taking on doctors... The discussion was never really about which service is better. It was about whose toes they were stepping on. In healthcare you can't take the "asking for forgiveness is easier than permission" route. That's a quick way to jail. In taxiing, it's just some fines that fit the budget. My overall point isn't to argue whether these disruptions are socially beneficial. I'm trying to point at the more neutral observation that who you're taking on and how much power they have will be crucial to the success of a disruptor. It's not just about "product quality" based on some objective dispassionate politics-free scientific benchmarks.

eszed 2y ago

In context, I think GP meant "open" from a sociopolitical point of view. The "taxi-industrial complex" had minimal political power, so Uber was repeatedly able to steamroll the incumbents - exactly as you describe in your final sentence. Medical interests have immense sociopolitical power, so the same playbook won't work. The differences in your positions are merely semantic.

bko 2y ago

Medallion holders had a weaker more fragmented system. If there was a nation wide system, they would have been able to organize better and kill Uber. Considering groups like the AMA literally dictate how many people are allowed to graduate from med school in a given year, the obviously have more control. Furthermore, on the state level there are often "Need Based Laws" that require healthcare providers to obtain approval before establishing or expanding certain healthcare facilities or services. This is unironically designed to prevent unnecessary duplication of healthcare services, control healthcare costs and ensure equitable distribution of healthcare resources. Imagine how expensive it would be if we have two many choices! The cab cartel was more or less city level. Add in the fact that "health care" is much more politically charged and its easy to find useful idiots that want to "protect people's health" that enforcement is a lot easier, they're entirely different.

musicale 2y ago
Not all conspiracy theories are false. Good thing most people don't know about this, or they might get really angry at the AMA, perhaps even voting for representatives who might enact laws to reform the system. Fortunately that would never happen.