this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2023
726 points (99.2% liked)

News

23408 readers
3051 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Alexstarfire 131 points 11 months ago (1 children)

A place that prioritizes profit over care has worse care service? Never would have guessed the outcome.

[–] Starbuck 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

But they had better profits, so it’s worth it. Unless you’re sick or poor, in which case who cares

[–] kautau 6 points 11 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 75 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 11 months ago (3 children)

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...

[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Right. Like they deliberately make good things into shit. I wish there was a good term for this phenomenon.

[–] mkhopper 11 points 11 months ago

Greed.

No, no. Unabashed greed.

No, take it all the way. Fuck the little people to support my unabashed greed.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Enshittification. Coined by Cory Doctorow.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

Haha yes, I know. I was kidding. Sorry.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

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)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

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.

[–] SecretSauces 4 points 11 months ago

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)
[–] someguy3 72 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] Death__BySnuSnu 30 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] NatakuNox 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Actually, we all saw this coming.

[–] unreasonabro 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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!

[–] Octavio 67 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If you are surprised by this you probably have a poster of Ayn Rand on your wall.

[–] d00phy 11 points 11 months ago

Glad this was the top comment for me. Don’t need to scroll any further.

[–] [email protected] 59 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Capitalism ruins everything it touches.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 11 months ago

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.

[–] gedaliyah 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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)
[–] [email protected] 57 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

But Argentina thinks if they try it one more time...

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Jerkface 51 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] paraphrand 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Thanks Jerkface.

I hate comments that are like “duh, we fucking know! Thus XYZ report or research is a waste of time and money!”

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago

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)
[–] [email protected] 46 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)
[–] rivermonster 29 points 11 months ago

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.

[–] cabron_offsets 29 points 11 months ago

Bruh, the point is literally to make money. Of course care will be compromised.

[–] dhcmrlchtdj__ 19 points 11 months ago

I’ll take No-brainers for $100, Alex

[–] spicethedirt 18 points 11 months ago

No fuckin shit.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Privatisation is never the answer.

[–] unreasonabro 3 points 11 months ago

nationalisation, on the other hand...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

In other news, water is wet.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] blazeknave 15 points 11 months ago

It's not even feelings... Their missions are diametrically opposed. Hippocratic oath vs returns to shareholders should be regulated

[–] [email protected] 12 points 11 months ago

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.)

[–] Fades 11 points 11 months ago

But corporate ownership is where most companies go to enshittify and die

[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago

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.

[–] unreasonabro 10 points 11 months ago

that sure wasn't completely obvious from the outset

hardly even at all

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago

In other news, study reveals stuff gets wet when splashed with water. More at 11.

[–] UristMcHolland 6 points 11 months ago

There's a whole season of 'The Good Doctor ' that shows this process happening.

[–] beebarfbadger 6 points 11 months ago

Almost as if the new priority were then profits instead of adequate patient care... Almost...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Next you'll be telling me that they charge more too.

[–] unreasonabro 2 points 11 months ago

Telling you things? that's gonna cost you

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

This is absolutely true.

load more comments
view more: next ›