• Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year 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.

    • Lianodel@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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…

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year 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.

  • Rooskie91@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • MimicJar@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year 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.)

    • admiralteal@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Alto@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year 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.