723
A place that prioritizes profit over care has worse care service? Never would have guessed the outcome.
But they had better profits, so it’s worth it. Unless you’re sick or poor, in which case who cares
Not to worry! The competition of the elderly and terminal who are living there will allow them to just pack their bags and move to another place easily and without impact to their wellbeing because of their freedom of choice in this wonderful free market guided by the invisible hand
It's almost like privatizing public services is, somehow, a bad idea. But, but, but... capitalism....
E: jokes aside. The findings in these studies, while obvious to some (possibly most) people, are extremely important. Feelings without supporting data, are just opinions. Feeling with supporting data, are facts. Because of this study, we now have facts to fight against further privatization of public services.
I don't know, I'm starting to get the sneaking suspicion that "good" and "profitable" aren't synonyms. It's almost as if there is often a financial incentive to make things worse...
Right. Like they deliberately make good things into shit. I wish there was a good term for this phenomenon.
Greed.
No, no. Unabashed greed.
No, take it all the way. Fuck the little people to support my unabashed greed.
Enshittification. Coined by Cory Doctorow.
Haha yes, I know. I was kidding. Sorry.
It's called "rent seeking." Even if some ya sci-fi author tried to coin a new term, there is nothing new about this type of behavior.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'm starting to get the sneaking suspicion that "good" and "profitable" aren't synonyms.
They're polar opposites.
Maybe one day there will be politicians with the balls to actually do something about it.
Quality, especially in a service like healthcare, often doesn't mean profit. It's all about "how low can i make my overhead costs to make my good/service just BARELY passable, then take it one step lower".
load more comments
(2 replies)
I'm shocked. Shocked!
Well, not that shocked.
Actually, we all saw this coming.
like we read the script a few dozen times before.
this is the part where we were supposed to be shocked, though. Hey everybody, gasp!
If you are surprised by this you probably have a poster of Ayn Rand on your wall.
Glad this was the top comment for me. Don’t need to scroll any further.
Capitalism ruins everything it touches.
Many of these hospitals were capitalist before the takeover too -- they just were beholden to local owners rather than big national firm owners.
Local ownership is a VERY powerful check on the power of capital. Communities can hold sway over owners beyond what is reflected the general ledger of the business. And one of the reasons big national brands are good at out-competing local business is precisely BECAUSE they can ignore these social costs -- even externalize them -- and reap further profit for the exercise.
Even if you're anticapitalist as fuck, this is why it is still important to buy and support local business whenever possible. Because the less local the business is, the less it cares about its customers and employees' welfare.
And when local owners get greedy and want to sell to big firms, it's very important to hit them with as much social punishment as possible. Friends don't let friends sell their businesses to hedge funds.
Local ownership can cut both ways. Local businessmen reach a certain level of wealth and power and can essentially take over the entire town. It's how you end up with situations like the Murdaughs.
However you look at it, the overconsolidation of wealth always has negative impscts.
Also a lot of hospitals were not for profit. It may upset the atheist crowd here but they were run by religious organizations as charities. Not that they didn't make money, but everything was reinvested back into care.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Privatization is the biggest scam of the 20th and 21st centuries. It has ruined every service it's touched and made them all more expensive. The exact opposite of what Neoliberal clowns keep telling us.
But Argentina thinks if they try it one more time...
load more comments
(2 replies)
Just a reminder that the point of researching the validity of things we intuitively know to be true is to provide the empirical data and expert analysis that can be used in, say, legal decisions or legislative processes.
Thanks Jerkface.
I hate comments that are like “duh, we fucking know! Thus XYZ report or research is a waste of time and money!”
empirical data ... legislative processes.
Haha good one. The only data that matters to those in charge is what makes them more money, and the business friends more money and the lobbyists more money. Other data is basically irrelevant with the current asshiles that are in charge.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Related:
LMFAO, how could any source report this with a straight face. DUH.
Capitalisms goal is to max short-term profit at any and all expenses, including your lives, locations, and social fabric. Capitalism does and will continue to kill you for short-term non-sustainable profit.
Bruh, the point is literally to make money. Of course care will be compromised.
I’ll take No-brainers for $100, Alex
No fuckin shit.
Privatisation is never the answer.
nationalisation, on the other hand...
load more comments
(1 replies)
In other news, water is wet.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It's not even feelings... Their missions are diametrically opposed. Hippocratic oath vs returns to shareholders should be regulated
Staff gets hours cut -> Less antimicrobial stewardship
-> Rise in infections -> :O
The increases are seen in conditions or outcomes deemed preventable and are key measures of hospital safety and quality.
But not profit. If these hospitals were paid based on decreasing preventable conditions we'd all be much better off.
Right now coming into a hospital twice is more profitable than coming into a hospital once. If we (insurance) paid based on minimizing visits then both hospital safety and quality would increase.
That isn't to say it's perfect. Corporations will always find loop-holes in the name of profit, but it would be a good first step. (Assuming we're going to have for-profit hospitals at all, which is the real mistake.)
But corporate ownership is where most companies go to enshittify and die
that sure wasn't completely obvious from the outset
hardly even at all
I remember reading about this in an architectural monthly like 10 years ago or more:
It didn't matter how "high-end" the building they were constructing was, they were always using the cheapest building materials available and long-term viability of the structure was a sincere afterthought.
In other news, study reveals stuff gets wet when splashed with water. More at 11.
There's a whole season of 'The Good Doctor ' that shows this process happening.
Almost as if the new priority were then profits instead of adequate patient care... Almost...
Next you'll be telling me that they charge more too.
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is absolutely true.
Look up Quentin Cook
Fuck that guy
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2023
723 points (99.2% liked)
News
23655 readers
3241 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS