• gedaliyah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    105
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    The arguments about “inefficiency” and “bureaucracy” have to be the most baffling ones to me. We already have a system that is an inefficient maze of red tape, lengthy forms, and arbitrary decisions about healthcare availability made by suits without medical training. We already pay high premiums. What “efficiencies” of capitalist healthcare are we so desperate to preserve?

    • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      79
      ·
      10 months ago

      Every single dollar earned in profit by a health insurance company is a dollar that was spent on healthcare, for which no healthcare was delivered. And there are billions of them.

      Health insurance company profits are literally inefficiency in the system.

      • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        Health insurance company profits are literally inefficiency in the system.

        And an absolutely staggering inefficiency at that. The US spends roughly twice as much per capita as the rest of the developed world for healthcare, for health outcomes that are ranked nowhere near the top. A 100% inefficiency, attributable entirely to private health insurance.

    • Clent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      cApItaLIsm iS tHe OnlY EfFiCiEnT sYsUUuuuuM!!11!1!1 - every capitalist-simp

          • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Someone starts a new company. It either grows or dies. The company can change over time to adapt to it’s environment, it can split, it can spawn new companies. The ones that fit best in their environment survive. The ones that don’t die. Some companies fill a specific niche and never grow beyond that. If they grow too big they can outpace their environment and destroy it and themselves.

            • Perfide@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              10 months ago

              Some companies fill a specific niche and never grow beyond that. If they grow too big they can outpace their environment and destroy it and themselves.

              Don’t mind me, just fantasizing about the alternate timeline where Amazon never expanded past selling books.

          • LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            pls expand:

            C a p i t a l i s m i s a n a l o g o u s t o e v o l u t i o n . I w o u l d n ’ t c a l l i t e f f i c i e n t i n a n y w a y .

            pls expound:

            Someone starts a new company. It either grows or dies. The company can change over time to adapt to it’s environment, it can split, it can spawn new companies. The ones that fit best in their environment survive. The ones that don’t die. Some companies fill a specific niche and never grow beyond that. If they grow too big they can outpace their environment and destroy it and themselves.

      • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Efficiency only comes at scale. Only way to be truly efficient in capitalism is to ultimately have the entire system fold into one conglomerate monopoly.

        At that point, how is that better than communism or socialism?

        • cheesepotatoes@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Are you… Unfamiliar with the numerous other types economic systems?

          what an odd thing to say.

          Uno reverse.

          • PatFusty@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Please name an economic system on planet earth that doesnt revolve around capitalism and where it is used.

            • cheesepotatoes@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              OP did not specify “currently in use”. You added that all by yourself. Additionally, something currently being in use does not imply it is the best possible option. We lived under fuedal socio-economic systems for thousands of years, now we live under corporatist/capitalist systems. I don’t know what will come in the future.

              • PatFusty@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                Sorry you are right, there are some communities that are trying things on their own. For instance in Israel they have some socialist communities in their kibbutz in the settlement areas. They tried being self sufficient but later ended up being reliant on government subsidies. So Amsterdam having a different system within the Netherlands makes sense. I would imagine there are many more communities like these but I have not heard of a whole government body working outside of capitalism.

                Updoots

    • PugJesus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      The efficiency of the system at making a few people very rich. Sure, it impoverishes people like us - but someday, WE might be rich! And then people like us better watch our step!