I know that any anti-capitalism comments get immediately downvoted here but yeah...
The privatization of healthcare is a conflict of interest which is a product of our hyper-capitalistic society. You can't make a profit center out of human services without dehumanizing it in the process - the very nature of profit/capitalistic societies means someone has to lose and I see no place for these interests in healthcare or education.
Edit: yep - expected that. Maybe someone argue as to why privatization (which is a product of capitalism) isn't a conflict of interest in regards to healthcare?
Private health care is adversarial (so you have to look out for your own interests) but this does not automatically imply a conflict of interest. It may become a conflict of interest if you get your advice about which tests or treatments to undergo from the same health care provider who profits from you taking that advice, but this is something which you have control over: Get your advice from one place and have the work done somewhere else, just as you would for e.g. home inspections.
It's not as if public health care doesn't have moral hazards of its own, including conflict of interest. The system may officially be non-profit but the interests of its workers and administrators (profit-oriented or otherwise) do not necessarily align with those of the patient.
>the very nature of profit/capitalistic societies means someone has to lose
If by 'profit/capitalistic societies' you mean those allowing for voluntary exchanges between its people, I would disagree. As an adherent to the subjective theory of value, I think it is common that both parties in an exchange would consider themselves 'winners.' [0]
The reason I am firmly in this school of thought is that I've made the absolute mistake of a decision to try for "win-win" situations in a capitalistic society, specifically in regards to contract negotiations and ultimately pricing/billing.
When I'm making sure that the person on the other end of the table "wins" I'm putting myself at a capitalistic disadvantage; and - if both parties "won" then didn't both ultimately lose?
I get your ideal, but when money is involved I find that the "win-win" is very much that: just an ideal. And, anecdotally over the years I've found many business experts write on the topic of why "win-win" is a losing position which validates my position on this.
What is the definition of "win-win" that you are against?
I'm not familiar with Jim Camp, but the term is vague. The linked article to me mainly seems to argue that:
- the side with a better BATNA has more negotiating power (yes, of course) and
- a negotiator should avoid agreeing to a bad deal out of desperation (yes, of course - but not always easy to do)
I'm not sure how the concept of "win-win" specifically plays into it, so I think this is where definitions are useful.
To me, win-win doesn't make sense for transactional negotiations where there is only one dimension (usually price), but CAN happen for more complex negotiations with multiple dimensions where each dimension has different value to each party (price, time, volume commitments, etc...)
> if both parties "won" then didn't both ultimately lose?
No, because even in a capitalist society "winning" is defined by each party's relative improvement over the state they would be in if they didn't come to an agreement and make the trade—not by some absolute measure of whether they did better than the other party. A "win-win" is simply an agreement where both parties are better off for making the trade. This is the usual state of things when both parties are free to accept or decline and there is no deception (fraud) involved, since both parties need to accept the agreement and they will only do so if they believe that doing so benefits them. In rare cases one or both parties may be mistaken about the benefit, but they know their own business better than anyone else and are best positioned to judge the expected value of making the trade based on the information available at the time.
I have to agree with you for the most part, as a Canadian, I know our healthcare system is flawed, deep systemic problems, problems I'm not even familiar with. However, we don't have to deal with any of these price lists or copays or pre-approvals or debt (inside the scope of hospitalisation)
I've even heard arguements that many of the pitfalls stem from privatised aspects.
I'm a fairly capitalist person, but there is something awfully and fundamentally wrong about a society that monetizes well-being and health.
> However, we don't have to deal with any of these price lists or copays or pre-approvals or debt (inside the scope of hospitalisation) I've even heard arguements that many of the pitfalls stem from privatised aspects
Many of the current US medical problems (bureaucratization of medicine) actually evolved out of massive government regulation with debatable value. EMRs, ICD/coding, the bureacracu that eats up 25% of your doctor's day? It is mainly for insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid.
> I'm a fairly capitalist person, but there is something awfully and fundamentally wrong about a society that monetizes well-being and health
All the medical providers (doctors/nurses/therapists/techs/PAs/etc) do not work for free, and there is a significant logistics and technology tail in providing medical services at huge scale.
If you really want to go after waste in medicine ask the following questions:
(1) How much are the nonclinical hospital mgmt & insurance executives paid?
(2) What is the ratio of clinical to non-clinical personnel?
(3) Why is the US subsidizing the vast majority of the medical research, and drug profits for the entire world?
These are serious questions because, as my nearby regional hospital group was firing hundreds of nurses during COVID, their CEO was collecting millions.
>...the very nature of profit/capitalistic societies means someone has to lose
The last time you bought milk did you lose or did the grocery store? The last time you paid money for a hair cut, who lost there?
The extreme regulation of all aspects of health care that has developed over the last century has improved some problems and created other problems - the problems specific to healthcare have little to do with the "the very nature of profit/capitalistic societies"
> The last time you bought milk did you lose or did the grocery store?
There's way more people involved in that supply chain then me and the store. This is an over simplification.
Outside of the obvious answer of "the cows" - factory farming has been destroying my home state causing huge problems in rural America. Also - the environment. Big time the loser there is the environment for literally any bovine farming.
> The last time you paid money for a hair cut
When I was getting my hair cut professionally I tipped a $20 because I knew the gal cutting my hair working at the midwestern mall Regis Salon was making jack-all. I knew this because I worked at Geeksquad with her boyfriend, eventually husband. If I were not to tip well she would be at-risk for making minimum wage for that hour - and since you can't support yourself on minimum wage I see that as her losing.
I've always tipped my butt off because I know without that they lose.
---
So yeah - sorry... I anecdotally do see losers in the situations you described. I don't have to look hard to see them.
>Big time the loser there is the environment for literally any bovine farming.
Factory farming probably does cause externalities that aren't addressed. People could choose to buy from grocers who only source from smaller farms but there isn't as much interest in that due to price sensitivity.
>...and since you can't support yourself on minimum wage I see that as her losing.
Even in the case where you didn't tip, she likely would have preferred having the work than there not being a job available at that location.
The privatization of healthcare is a conflict of interest which is a product of our hyper-capitalistic society. You can't make a profit center out of human services without dehumanizing it in the process - the very nature of profit/capitalistic societies means someone has to lose and I see no place for these interests in healthcare or education.
Edit: yep - expected that. Maybe someone argue as to why privatization (which is a product of capitalism) isn't a conflict of interest in regards to healthcare?