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.
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.
hmm, if we follow the example like “desertification”, how about “shittification”?
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”.
You don’t need supporting data to understand businesses will do whatever will maximize profit.
This intrinsically means charging the most while providing the least.
Not to understand, no. But to fight it in a legal court, you need data and fact.
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.
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…
Very few cultures are able to pass the United States.
Most of them just follow behind, like businesses copying Apple.
The United States is the poster child for what NOT to do with healthcare for the good of the population
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.
They also reinvest in their communities, whereas big corporations siphon up all the capital, and abscond.
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.
we should try getting to the point where common sense is applied before legislation is passed! that’d probably save some fucking money
The problem is that common sense is subjective.
Related:
Bruh, the point is literally to make money. Of course care will be compromised.
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.
I’ll take No-brainers for $100, Alex
No fuckin shit.
Privatisation is never the answer.
nationalisation, on the other hand…
Well it is a great answer when the question is what’s the quickest way to systematically destroy human society
In other news, water is wet.
and bullshit reeks
It’s not even feelings… Their missions are diametrically opposed. Hippocratic oath vs returns to shareholders should be regulated
