4 ms·

That CEO didn't seem to have any qualms about killing people

by evoke4908 2y ago

tanseydavid 2y ago
They're not going to hire for a healthcare CEO with high empathy. I mean, think of the shareholders!
- bornfreddy 2y ago
  It's like profit is at odds with taking care of the patients. Who would have thought.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    I feel like a lot of doctors and nurses wouldn’t be doctors or nurses without the decent profit they earn. I certainly wouldn’t work evenings, nights, weekends, and holidays, not to mention sacrifice my life during my 20s. And be around gross stuff and sad people. And especially not when you can earn a comparable profit working behind keyboard.
    - bornfreddy 2y ago
      That's... not what I meant. It is one thing to earn (very) good wages and entirely another thing to optimise the whole healthcare for profit. Healthcare is, by definition, a cost center. If you wanted to align incentives (a bit better) you would be paying for it only when you are not ill, not when you are. A decent compromise is what most countries do, which is that citizens pay a fixed sum for health insurance which covers most of the basic expenses. However the incentives are never completely aligned - someone profits from people being ill.
      - lotsofpulp 2y ago
        > optimise the whole healthcare for profit. I don’t understand what this means. A group of doctors get together and open a business offering their services, and they distribute profits into their bank accounts. Or a dentist, or an optometrist, or a podiatrist. Why would 99% of people do this work if they cannot profit? > A decent compromise is what most countries do, which is that citizens pay a fixed sum for health insurance which covers most of the basic expenses. That is just health insurance with $0 deductible/copays. Some US employers do offer this, and some even pay 100% of the premiums. But these plans don’t sell well to the broader public, because most people would prefer (or can only afford) a lower premium and accept the volatility of having to spend a few hundred or a few thousand before insurance kicks in.
        bornfreddy 2y ago
        > I don’t understand what this means. In some (many?) countries the options for private healthcare are limited (by design) and public healthcare takes care of people. Not in USA though. :) It has its pros and cons, but to be honest, neither system works very well. I would pick a public one anytime, but maybe it's just because I know it. > Why would 99% of people do this work if they cannot profit? They do profit, and should - they get a paycheck for their work.
Clubber 2y ago
It was indirect, and people always see themselves as the good guy. It's easy to justify in your mind. "I'm saving shareholders money." "Most doctors over service patients, so they are the bad guys." "They would have died anyway," etc. I would bet a lot of the healthcare CEO's are totally surprised that anyone would want to harm them.

That CEO didn't seem to have any qualms about killing people

tanseydavid 2y ago

They're not going to hire for a healthcare CEO with high empathy. I mean, think of the shareholders!

bornfreddy 2y ago
It's like profit is at odds with taking care of the patients. Who would have thought.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  I feel like a lot of doctors and nurses wouldn’t be doctors or nurses without the decent profit they earn. I certainly wouldn’t work evenings, nights, weekends, and holidays, not to mention sacrifice my life during my 20s. And be around gross stuff and sad people. And especially not when you can earn a comparable profit working behind keyboard.
  - bornfreddy 2y ago
    That's... not what I meant. It is one thing to earn (very) good wages and entirely another thing to optimise the whole healthcare for profit. Healthcare is, by definition, a cost center. If you wanted to align incentives (a bit better) you would be paying for it only when you are not ill, not when you are. A decent compromise is what most countries do, which is that citizens pay a fixed sum for health insurance which covers most of the basic expenses. However the incentives are never completely aligned - someone profits from people being ill.
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      > optimise the whole healthcare for profit. I don’t understand what this means. A group of doctors get together and open a business offering their services, and they distribute profits into their bank accounts. Or a dentist, or an optometrist, or a podiatrist. Why would 99% of people do this work if they cannot profit? > A decent compromise is what most countries do, which is that citizens pay a fixed sum for health insurance which covers most of the basic expenses. That is just health insurance with $0 deductible/copays. Some US employers do offer this, and some even pay 100% of the premiums. But these plans don’t sell well to the broader public, because most people would prefer (or can only afford) a lower premium and accept the volatility of having to spend a few hundred or a few thousand before insurance kicks in.
      - bornfreddy 2y ago
        > I don’t understand what this means. In some (many?) countries the options for private healthcare are limited (by design) and public healthcare takes care of people. Not in USA though. :) It has its pros and cons, but to be honest, neither system works very well. I would pick a public one anytime, but maybe it's just because I know it. > Why would 99% of people do this work if they cannot profit? They do profit, and should - they get a paycheck for their work.

Clubber 2y ago

It was indirect, and people always see themselves as the good guy. It's easy to justify in your mind. "I'm saving shareholders money." "Most doctors over service patients, so they are the bad guys." "They would have died anyway," etc. I would bet a lot of the healthcare CEO's are totally surprised that anyone would want to harm them.