🎓 Doc Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@qoto.org

@amerika

The democrats have a disturbing history of not following through. If they actually solved problems how would they co vince us we still need them?

@stevebenen @argv_minus_one

@amerika

No not correct. Why would a doctor whonprovides no emergency services of any kind raise their prices? Most medical practices dont offer or have any connection to emergency services.

@stevebenen @argv_minus_one

@amerika

Even a brolen clock is right twice a day.

Harris/Biden and Trump are both morons. That said you can fibd a few isolated examples of things thry modsrately improved. Whether they deserve the credit is debatable even then however.

@stevebenen @argv_minus_one

@amerika @stevebenen @argv_minus_one

And to answer your question, it would be like any other business. As long as a majority of the owners approve a merger, they can merge. Anti-competitive practices (anti-trust laws) would apply as usual. Something we dont enforce enough in the USA as we should, but we need to enforce that or the whole economy doesnt work.

@louis

As far as i know current insurance isnt prone to corruption as the major issue driving price, it is prone to greed, which is a legal though undesired factor that is very different from corruption.

As for the smaller co-ops not having negotiating power, since no insurance is driven by greed who would they competing against to negotiate. There would be no motivator for insurance to have **exclusive** deals. Doctors would want the largest networks, and insurance companies would want the largest, and there would be very little preventing that in most cases. Expensive doctors might prefer more expensive insurance, but if the patients of those doctors are likewise the owner inthe practice (not just in the insurance) even that goes away since the doctor is no longer setting their own price, their owner (the patients) are.

@argv_minus_one @stevebenen

@argv_minus_one

Right now a doctor tends to be in the "network" of many insurances at the same time, not a single one. Presumably that would still be true under a co-op system. Obviously the size of a provider network would be one of the factors that would make one insurance more appealing than another, but overall id expect you to be just fine switching providers and keeping your doctor.

Also keep in mind with PPO type insurance you are never required to get a referral so can see any doctor at any time, with out of network being slightly more expensive.

That said no reason an insurance cant be open to any and all doctors at an appropriate price point.

@stevebenen

@SETIEric

I do agree that we can better address our supply of doctors. Though my views there are a bit all over the place. For starters if i really had my way completely I would totally take away any authority doctors have. I would make all prescription drugs availible over hte counter. This works quite well in many countries and doctors are now someone you choose to consult rather than whoa re forced to. This would eliminate the need for the AMA.

That said, i dont think id ever convince america to actually trust people to have autonomy over their own bodies, so I doubt that would happen.

The other thing id do regardless of anything else is make all job training, mentorship, tradeschools, and education free to all people at any level (up to and including PhD or medical doctor). That should address the supply issue to some extent.

@argv_minus_one @stevebenen

@amerika

How do you figure that would fix the price problem with have? Why would that be driving up the price for doctors who are in no way effected by the act (it effects hospitals with emergency rooms)

@stevebenen @argv_minus_one

@argv_minus_one

Sane healthcare would be one that addresses both sides of the equation... greed from unregulated for-profit healthcare that drives prices to insane levels due to supply and demand being broken (demand is infinite since people will give everything to live longer). It also needs to address the other side of the coin with highly-regulated universal health care, which is the lack of a free market to drive quality so things like wait times, availible medications, and other issues arise.

There are a few solutions to this but the best one I have heard is co-op based health care. Essentially healthcare where the owners are the patients of the companies they use, and there are no owners otherwise (so all owners are equal owners). When you move to a new healthcare company then you loose ownership in the old one and gain ownership in the new one.

This gives you supply-demand pressures that ensure your healthcare caters to what you want and need (or else loose their funding by patients moving), but keeps prices in check by eliminating the greed factor since any profits go back to the patients and insurance holders themselves.

@stevebenen

@argv_minus_one @stevebenen

> No. They both know. Trump doesn't want it because it's unprofitable. Harris doesn't dare propose it because she'll lose the election if she does.

I doubt it. I hav emet very few people who propose sane health care that fixes all the problem. Most either propose universal healthcare, or for-profit, both of which are complete and utter failures. I have met maybe one or two people in my life who actually have a clue about how to do healthcare in a way that doesnt result in either abusive wait times, or abusive costs (and other issues).

> It is the American people who don't have the first clue about what sane health care would look like.

Agreed they dont, nor does Canada, Europe, the UK or anywhere else int he world.

> And that's also true of the populations of Canada and the UK, which used to have it, and continue to elect politicians who promise to destroy it.

facts

> I can't believe our species has survived this long. We clearly don't deserve it.

yup

And europe, agreed.

@stevebenen If there is one thing that is obvious to me this election its that neither Trump nor Harris have the first clue about what sane healthcare would look like.

@HamonWry

To put it into perspective youa re 2x more likely to be struck by lightening in your lifetime than the chance of an american dying in a school shooting in their lifetime.

@WmShakesp3are

Woa, way to be i hinged. I was just trying to better ubderstand yoir viewpoint. Clearly that was a mistake.

@WmShakesp3are

> I was responding to @peter_ellis.

I am aware, and tagged me to keep me in thr comversation, so here i am.

And yea he owns twitter, im not not sure what you are suggesting we are powerless to stop? Like twitter from existing? Him from posting? What ia it in an ideal world you want to stop specifically? Seems as you pointed out most of that is stopped by just not using twitter or blocking him on twitter. It seems far from powerless, nor do we need to block everything he owns. Just dont engage in the part you dont want to, problem solved. You can block himnon twitter and never ha e to hear him while still.buying a tesla.

@peter_ellis @GrimmReality @Urban_Hermit

@bufalo1973

Ideologically pire governments do not and can not exists. All principles exist withi a network of nuanced ideas where some may be more dominante than others but jonone idea can or doea exist in isolation.

Juat as there is nonpurely capitalist coubtry there will never and can never be a ourely communist country.

Ao yea i agree, when we say communist what we mean is "communisn is a dominante, perhaps even central, ideology"

@GrimmReality

@CivilityFan

> Concentration of wealth has more to do with the autocratic mechanisms allowed to exist in government than it does the economic landscape of the society.

Right that was exactly my point, thank you.

@GrimmReality

@WmShakesp3are

What action do you specifically wish to stop that you feel we are powerless to stop?

@peter_ellis @GrimmReality @Urban_Hermit

TIL Wild Rice is not related to the white rice we eat. I always though it was the same plant just with the husk on.