3 ms·

We can finally get that universal healthcare then

aspenmayer 1y ago
The healthcare industry doesn't need a bailout, though, so the US has no leverage to demand 10% of healthcare companies' stocks.
- bdangubic 1y ago
  The “US” you are referring to no longer exists. It has been replaced by a combo of North Korea and Venezuela :)
- TehCorwiz 1y ago
  The healthcare industry as it is is dominated by parasitic middlemen sucking the money from both patient and provider.
- vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
  The healthcare industry is receiving perpetual bailouts through drug import restrictions, tax deductions, subsidies and favorable legislation.
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    > The healthcare industry is receiving perpetual bailouts through drug import restrictions, tax deductions, subsidies and favorable legislation. The chip fab industry builds billion dollar bespoke superfund sites, and they're paid for the privilege. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv65swcp.5 https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv65swcp.5 | https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv65swcp.5 https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv65swcp.5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund
- kelnos 1y ago
  > the US has no leverage to demand 10% of healthcare companies' stocks The US government doesn't need leverage. It just needs an act of Congress. Corporations are convenient fictions that exist at the pleasure of our legal system, which can be changed.
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    I agree that this could be done as it has happened before, but I don’t think anyone would go quietly. It’s expropriation without pay or eminent domain if it’s with pay, but I would expect a Supreme Court challenge if Congress came anywhere near this, either way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_the...
    - hakfoo 1y ago
      A nifty play would just be "the corporate veil is no longer free. Issue the state stock for a 49% stake, or your investors have unlimited liability." Then there's a theoretical "trade" but virtually nobody's going to say no.
      - aspenmayer 1y ago
        In such a scenario, the US gov is only ~2% away from a 51% attack hostile takeover against any/every public company, depending on the kind of shares. This is not likely.
        hakfoo 1y ago
        That's the goal. Right now, public companies are far too governed by people who want the business to succeed at all costs. The state could represent interests like "keeping high-paid jobs on-shore" or "avoid legal/labour/environmental standard arbitrage" that regular investors won't vote for.
        bdangubic 1y ago
        works for venezuela and all other commie countries so you know, why don’t we try to become that too :)
- WillPostForFood 1y ago
  the US has no leverage to demand 10% of healthcare companies' stocks. US federal government is the biggest player in healthcare, by far. 32% of all healthcare spending is Federal government dollars. They have plenty of leverage. Bad if they use it, but they have it. $900+ billion in Medicare yearly $600+ billion in Medicaid yearly
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    Why would the government taking a stake of the insurance companies be a benefit from the point of view of the federal government or the insurance companies? What would the value add for either party be?
    - Hikikomori 1y ago
      Can recoup some of the completely unnecessary money poured into insurance companies that shouldn't exist.
      - aspenmayer 1y ago
        That money almost seems like ill-gotten gains at this point. To a certain reading, it’s blood money.[0] If the insurance rates are too high, I don’t see how another cook in the kitchen is going to cook the books better, but I’m willing to believe that it could be a shakeup that might work. I just don’t have high hopes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine,_Affluence,_and_Morality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine,_Affluence,_and_Moralit...
        Hikikomori 1y ago
        Don't worry, they're now using AI to deny claims.
    - WillPostForFood 1y ago
      You said the government had no leverage, I am pointing out they have tremendous leverage. I said it would be bad to use the leverage, so I don't think there is a benefit.
cookiengineer 1y ago
Most people in the US seem to not realize that a social healthcare system is better for all of them due to all of them sharing the bill. Now only companies are left to pick up the bill, because a republican administration won't ever consider doing it. I still wonder when CEOs will realize that lack of education and lack of healthcare will eventually land at their doorsteps because they won't have immigrant workforces anymore that can compensate for it.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- fransje26 1y ago
  > I still wonder when CEOs will realize that lack of education and lack of healthcare will eventually land at their doorsteps Have you considered that they don't care? They can make a better profit now, so why worry about what is happening 5 to 10 years down the line?
- epolanski 1y ago
  > Most people in the US seem to not realize that a social healthcare system is better for all of them due to all of them sharing the bill. As a high-income earner I used to be in favor of privatizing healthcare here in Italy/Europe. I've always seen the public healthcare system wasteful and inefficient. Our healthcare system really is in a terrible spot. Then few years ago, a very close friend of mine, had to give birth to her child. She had chosen one of the most expensive hospitals in the region, where there would be a huge staff all for her, not that crappy public service she would get. Then tragedy struck: in all the luxury and care she was receiving, her newborn had huge problems staying alive, and died of respiratory issues few minutes after birth. A very preventable death the autopsy stated moreover if she was in an appropriate public hospital. Why? Because larger public hospitals have all a newborn reanimation unit with trained staff exactly for these kind of emergencies. Private ones? They are virtually non existent, doesn't matter the country or budget, no private hospital can afford such an expensive unit that requires extremely specific training and equipment but gets to act rarely if ever. So they don't exist in those contextes. Since then I realized how naive I was: private healthcare just cannot justify investing in a huge amount of treatments that are a financial disaster for the private clinic/hospital. They just can't. Thus, at the end of the day, you don't really want private healthcare that has to choose what to provide on a $ basis, you just don't. You want a as comprehensive and available public service that needs the right amount of money and incentives to work properly. I don't know how can it be achieved, but you really don't want to be that father/mother, sister, friend or patient that cannot access an important procedure because it makes no financial sense to offer it.

The healthcare industry doesn't need a bailout, though, so the US has no leverage to demand 10% of healthcare companies' stocks.

bdangubic 1y ago
The “US” you are referring to no longer exists. It has been replaced by a combo of North Korea and Venezuela :)
TehCorwiz 1y ago
The healthcare industry as it is is dominated by parasitic middlemen sucking the money from both patient and provider.
vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
The healthcare industry is receiving perpetual bailouts through drug import restrictions, tax deductions, subsidies and favorable legislation.
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  > The healthcare industry is receiving perpetual bailouts through drug import restrictions, tax deductions, subsidies and favorable legislation. The chip fab industry builds billion dollar bespoke superfund sites, and they're paid for the privilege. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv65swcp.5 https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv65swcp.5 | https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv65swcp.5 https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv65swcp.5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund
kelnos 1y ago
> the US has no leverage to demand 10% of healthcare companies' stocks The US government doesn't need leverage. It just needs an act of Congress. Corporations are convenient fictions that exist at the pleasure of our legal system, which can be changed.
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  I agree that this could be done as it has happened before, but I don’t think anyone would go quietly. It’s expropriation without pay or eminent domain if it’s with pay, but I would expect a Supreme Court challenge if Congress came anywhere near this, either way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_the...
  - hakfoo 1y ago
    A nifty play would just be "the corporate veil is no longer free. Issue the state stock for a 49% stake, or your investors have unlimited liability." Then there's a theoretical "trade" but virtually nobody's going to say no.
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      In such a scenario, the US gov is only ~2% away from a 51% attack hostile takeover against any/every public company, depending on the kind of shares. This is not likely.
      - hakfoo 1y ago
        That's the goal. Right now, public companies are far too governed by people who want the business to succeed at all costs. The state could represent interests like "keeping high-paid jobs on-shore" or "avoid legal/labour/environmental standard arbitrage" that regular investors won't vote for.
        bdangubic 1y ago
        works for venezuela and all other commie countries so you know, why don’t we try to become that too :)
WillPostForFood 1y ago
the US has no leverage to demand 10% of healthcare companies' stocks. US federal government is the biggest player in healthcare, by far. 32% of all healthcare spending is Federal government dollars. They have plenty of leverage. Bad if they use it, but they have it. $900+ billion in Medicare yearly $600+ billion in Medicaid yearly
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  Why would the government taking a stake of the insurance companies be a benefit from the point of view of the federal government or the insurance companies? What would the value add for either party be?
  - Hikikomori 1y ago
    Can recoup some of the completely unnecessary money poured into insurance companies that shouldn't exist.
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      That money almost seems like ill-gotten gains at this point. To a certain reading, it’s blood money.[0] If the insurance rates are too high, I don’t see how another cook in the kitchen is going to cook the books better, but I’m willing to believe that it could be a shakeup that might work. I just don’t have high hopes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine,_Affluence,_and_Morality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine,_Affluence,_and_Moralit...
      - Hikikomori 1y ago
        Don't worry, they're now using AI to deny claims.
  - WillPostForFood 1y ago
    You said the government had no leverage, I am pointing out they have tremendous leverage. I said it would be bad to use the leverage, so I don't think there is a benefit.

cookiengineer 1y ago

Most people in the US seem to not realize that a social healthcare system is better for all of them due to all of them sharing the bill. Now only companies are left to pick up the bill, because a republican administration won't ever consider doing it. I still wonder when CEOs will realize that lack of education and lack of healthcare will eventually land at their doorsteps because they won't have immigrant workforces anymore that can compensate for it.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
fransje26 1y ago
> I still wonder when CEOs will realize that lack of education and lack of healthcare will eventually land at their doorsteps Have you considered that they don't care? They can make a better profit now, so why worry about what is happening 5 to 10 years down the line?
epolanski 1y ago
> Most people in the US seem to not realize that a social healthcare system is better for all of them due to all of them sharing the bill. As a high-income earner I used to be in favor of privatizing healthcare here in Italy/Europe. I've always seen the public healthcare system wasteful and inefficient. Our healthcare system really is in a terrible spot. Then few years ago, a very close friend of mine, had to give birth to her child. She had chosen one of the most expensive hospitals in the region, where there would be a huge staff all for her, not that crappy public service she would get. Then tragedy struck: in all the luxury and care she was receiving, her newborn had huge problems staying alive, and died of respiratory issues few minutes after birth. A very preventable death the autopsy stated moreover if she was in an appropriate public hospital. Why? Because larger public hospitals have all a newborn reanimation unit with trained staff exactly for these kind of emergencies. Private ones? They are virtually non existent, doesn't matter the country or budget, no private hospital can afford such an expensive unit that requires extremely specific training and equipment but gets to act rarely if ever. So they don't exist in those contextes. Since then I realized how naive I was: private healthcare just cannot justify investing in a huge amount of treatments that are a financial disaster for the private clinic/hospital. They just can't. Thus, at the end of the day, you don't really want private healthcare that has to choose what to provide on a $ basis, you just don't. You want a as comprehensive and available public service that needs the right amount of money and incentives to work properly. I don't know how can it be achieved, but you really don't want to be that father/mother, sister, friend or patient that cannot access an important procedure because it makes no financial sense to offer it.