266 points paimapi 3 hours ago 171 comments
jimbob45 3 hours ago | parent
defterGoose 3 hours ago | parent
jimbob45 2 hours ago | parent
gs17 2 hours ago | parent
NegativeK 3 hours ago | parent
I already hear the downsides frequently from someone whose work is directly affected.
twoodfin 3 hours ago | parent
Should they be outlawed from selling to certain classes of investor? Which?
Grombobulous 3 hours ago | parent
We have run this country on an assumption that we must give businesses a high amount of freedom. An argument can be made that businesses have been given too much freedom in our system. We’ve allowed Amazon and Ticketmaster and Walmart to exist and they shouldn’t exist in their present form.
Healthcare practices that provide necessary care shouldn’t even really be allowed to be for-profit entities if you ask me. The incentives become too perverse as a result.
lotsofpulp 3 hours ago | parent
How much would you want to sacrifice your 20s and early 30s? How much would you need to work in the middle of nowhere where your kids won’t have the best opportunities?
Grombobulous 3 hours ago | parent
Not-for-profit entities can still pay market rate wages to employees and owners.
gruez 2 hours ago | parent
Why stop at healthcare? Why not other essentials of life, like food or toilet paper?
wyre 2 hours ago | parent
Grombobulous 2 hours ago | parent
Many of them already lack profitability without subsidy.
Many agricultural products all pass through the same mega-sized processors and entities. Driscoll’s, Tyson, etc.
We’ve already made things like water and sanitation non-profit/government owned so the idea of doing more of that for food and essentials isn’t that crazy.
gruez 2 hours ago | parent
Like what?
>Many of them already lack profitability without subsidy.
That doesn't mean anything without context. How are the non-PE farms doing?
>We’ve already made things like water and sanitation non-profit/government owned so the idea of doing more of that for food and essentials isn’t that crazy.
sanitation: please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Management,_Inc.
water, but not power, or natural gas?
Grombobulous 2 hours ago | parent
I wasn’t talking about private equity farms versus not, I’m generally talking about industry consolidation.
Sanitation includes sewers which are typically municipal.
Power and natural gas are legal monopolies with strict rules on pricing.
There are also public electric utilities such as Cleveland Public Power.
everfree 2 hours ago | parent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foodborne_illness_outb...
If a product isn't nationally consolidated, it can't have a national foodborne illness outbreak.
gruez 2 hours ago | parent
Which is bad for PR and great for clicks, but it's entirely unclear whether we're better off on average. What about all the years where we didn't have a mass outbreak? Would it be better if every state/county had separate food supply chains, and they had the same rate of illness, but it's more randomly dispersed so it doesn't make it to national TV? Think the difference between airplane crash (maybe one incident per year, hundreds of deaths per incident) vs car crashes (40k/year)
jrflowers 25 minutes ago | parent
If we simply envision a nation without diarrhea have we not eradicated it in our hearts, where it matters mos
pixl97 1 hour ago | parent
https://www.npr.org/2026/07/09/nx-s1-5885008/department-of-j...
When consolidation happens collusion always follows, along with higher prices, and fines that are a tiny part of the total gain.
furytrader 2 hours ago | parent
Do you realize that when Walmart moves into a community, prices charged for everyday things overall drop significantly, both at Walmart and their competition, which means that poor families are able to buy more with every dollar.
What do you have against poor people?
ButlerianJihad 2 hours ago | parent
Grombobulous 2 hours ago | parent
Walmart is subsidized by the government to the tune of $2,000 per employee due to their low wages: https://rmfu.org/taxpayer-dollars-subsidize-wal-mart/ [1]
They then get to skim the other side of those subsidies, too, since they sell so many items that qualify for SNAP and WIC, as well as being one of the largest if not the largest prescription supplier in the country.
(25% of Walmart employees qualify for Medicaid https://mafainsurance.com/how-many-walmart-employees-are-on-...)
So their employees on SNAP and Medicaid turn right around and spend that money inside Walmart.
> both at Walmart and their competition
What competition? When Walmart comes to town, the competition closes.
[1] Probably a lot higher since this article is about 20 years old
gruez 2 hours ago | parent
>Walmart is subsidized by the government to the tune of $2,000 per employee due to their low wages: https://rmfu.org/taxpayer-dollars-subsidize-wal-mart/ [1]
And what happens if walmart closed up shop? Do those employees magically evaporate and not need benefits? Why are we putting the blame on the employee's best employment option?
>What competition? When Walmart comes to town, the competition closes.
Why? Because they're sending goon squads to trash all the existing businesses? If walmart replacing "the competition" because they're offering lower prices and consumers are switching, why is this bad?
gadflyinyoureye 1 hour ago | parent
pixl97 1 hour ago | parent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson%E2%80%93Patman_Act
>And what happens if walmart closed up shop
Everything explodes and people die in the streets.... No, other businesses move in to fill the economic needs because there is a profit to be made and provide jobs in doing so.
>Because they're sending goon squads to trash
You have a horrifically simplistic world view and can't imagine where goon squads actually are.
There was an article around 2 decades ago on how Walmart manipulates prices at an unimaginable scale via their suppliers. If you supply Walmart they automatically become your biggest customer. Walmart knows this, and has you by the proverbial balls. If you don't meet their demands they drop you in a heartbeat which is a death sentence for any business who's capitalization is not in the 10s of billions. There was a saying in this article I can no longer find but to summarize.
"To compete against Walmart is to invite death. To work with Walmart is to embrace it".
Simply put they are so large they have near monopoly power over a good chunk of manufacturing.
gruez 3 minutes ago | parent
So what's the complaint here, that walmart negotiates aggressively, passing those better prices to buyers, and that's... bad? Given we're in a thread complaining about healthcare, should walmart do the opposite, instead using the insurance company strategy of encouraging their suppliers to pad their margins, so they can offer "modest" (in % terms, high in absolute terms) markups?
refurb 1 hour ago | parent
Is Walmart to blame they hired a single mother of 3 for $20/hr? Would this women be better off if Walmart never existed and she was unemployed?
And then turn around and blame Walmart for selling essential food items for low prices because SNAP can be used to pay for them. Would you rather SNAP beneficiaries pay more for groceries so they have less to eat?
vannevar 1 hour ago | parent
If you think about this a bit, I'll bet you can spot the flaw in your own argument.
margalabargala 2 hours ago | parent
They're probably thinking the same thing as those darn busybodies who outlawed child labor.
MiroslavPokorny 26 minutes ago | parent
jolmg 2 hours ago | parent
You don't need to disallow them for necessary care to be provided. You can just have public healthcare programs. That can look like publicly-owned hospitals or regulation that private hospitals must provide certain services under certain conditions if they want to keep operating. Private healthcare then works to provide more than that basic service that fulfills necessary care, to the benefit of the public that can afford more.
runako 1 hour ago | parent
Unpopular knowledge is that these businesses are generally illegal in their current forms under existing US law. The relevant laws are still in effect, they are just rarely enforced. The scale of the lawbreaking runs to the trillions of dollars annually, and it directly harms every US consumer.
The illegal conduct is so pervasive that even explaining the existing federal law makes one sound ridiculous, because companies have been explicitly advertising illegal behavior for decades. Because there is no sanction.
One of my faves is the notion that $BIG_RETAILER can buy in bulk and get better pricing, which they pass on to the consumer. You may have seen a company advertise something like this. It sounds like smart business! There is an active federal law[1] that explicitly prohibits this arrangement.
Lack of enforcement of that law is a factor in the disappearance of the American "high street" and the demise of many small retailers.
My #1 call for reform in the US is to simply start enforcing laws, even if doing so makes rich people/companies uncomfortable.
gruez 24 minutes ago | parent
I'm not a lawyer, but a cursory search shows there's a bunch of carveouts. It's not a straightforward ban on all favorable pricing for big players. For instance, if there's an actual cost justification (eg. bigger buyer = more efficient shipping) that's allowed. Same with offering volume discounts that are available to all buyers. That's not to say everything's above board, but it's not as simple as "wow big box stores get better pricing than mom and pop shops, so there must be federal laws being violated".
EA-3167 2 hours ago | parent
Yes.
georgemcbay 2 hours ago | parent
I'd expand that to any type of business that has effectively inelastic demand through the ability to hold people emotionally hostage.
So, for example, in addition to hospitals also include veterinarians, funeral services, family planning, etc.
Soulless PE vultures should be barred from all of this.
EA-3167 2 hours ago | parent
shermantanktop 1 hour ago | parent
PyWoody 2 hours ago | parent
Should they be outlawed from selling to certain classes of investor? Which?
Yes. This is already the case for law firms as they have to be owned and managed by lawyers, in most jurisdictions.tekla 3 hours ago | parent
People who are vehemently against PE generally do not have any idea of how the system works
thrance 3 hours ago | parent
Tanjreeve 3 hours ago | parent
apical_dendrite 2 hours ago | parent
gruez 2 hours ago | parent
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-06/private-e...
prplfsh 2 hours ago | parent
It makes sense to me that someone could come in and say "hey, let me run the business + finance side of the house while you practice medicine" and at least on paper I can see a real world where that works out for everybody.
Of course, soon you end up with dentists pushing unnecessary procedures and more, so it doesn't always works out that way.
shermantanktop 2 hours ago | parent
NegativeK 2 hours ago | parent
I'm not arguing with you; I'm legitimately curious what happened to that model and why PE has swooped in as more attractive to doctors. Maybe it's the payout and/or the fact that they don't have to handle business owner decisions at _all_ anymore?
frisco 2 hours ago | parent
matteoraso 2 hours ago | parent
mmooss 1 hour ago | parent
It's a false choice. The healthcare system has long dealt with and deal with that situation without private equity.
mhh__ 2 hours ago | parent
I'm not a huge fan of PE but the point of economics to deliver cheap and quality goods to consumers not keep people in a job.
In healthcare in US in particular I think the main thing that capital should be (if regulators allow) boutique / specialists that e.g. are the best in the biz at doing MRI scans, in some states my understanding is that it's literally illegal to start a business aiming to make one small part of the process better.
cool_dude85 2 hours ago | parent
SoftTalker 2 hours ago | parent
cool_dude85 2 hours ago | parent
csa 43 minutes ago | parent
Simple example pitch that many general practitioners might consider using (based on local laws, of course):
“Insurance covers C, Y, and Z. I can offer these additional services for A, B, and C that are not covered by insurance.”
Where I live, you get a lot of this via “concierge doctors”, but that system can go far beyond basic concierge service, and people are willing to pay for top quality care.
csa 54 minutes ago | parent
Streamlining everything. Sometimes this is done in a bad faith way, but it’s often not difficult to do it in a good faith way.
Some simple examples:
- right-sizing staff (can be reducing, increasing, or changing roles)
- improving marketing (e.g., simple things like customer reactivation, packaging the product/service better, or just plain, ol’ getting the word out better via stuff like before/after pics or success stories)
- improving operations (e.g., better organization, better processes, better communication, better training, better logistics, etc.)
> Delivering better profit margins?
Improved profit margins are a byproduct of the things listed above.
throwaway20222 2 hours ago | parent
mhh__ 2 hours ago | parent
It's a steelman argument to be clear I'm not entirely convinced by it.
gruez 2 hours ago | parent
Contrary to popular belief, being intelligent in one thing does correlate with being intelligent at other things[1]. For doctors, the comparison with private equity (MBAs?) might be close, but it's not hard to imagine the targets of other PE rollups have owners that are more average in intelligence, think plumbing or roofing.
tbrownaw 1 hour ago | parent
> Contrary to popular belief, being intelligent in one thing does correlate with being intelligent at other things[1].
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
Which section of that very long article are you claiming supports your assertion?
Here's a bit from the start of the "Concept" section:
>> In a famous research paper published in 1904,[8] English psychologist Charles Spearman observed that children's performance measures across seemingly unrelated school subjects were positively correlated. The consistent finding of universally positive correlation matrices of mental test results (or the "positive manifold"), despite large differences in tests' contents, has been described as "arguably the most replicated result in all psychology".[9]
That explicitly contradicts your assertion.
gruez 1 hour ago | parent
vs
>The consistent finding of universally positive correlation matrices of mental test results (or the "positive manifold"), despite large differences in tests' contents, has been described as "arguably the most replicated result in all psychology".[9]
How are they contradictory? Did the first part of my comment make you think there was a negation?
tbrownaw 1 hour ago | parent
jknoepfler 2 hours ago | parent
They buy one (or more) companies, often with only the slimmest understanding of what those companies do, slash opex by gutting the company with layoffs (yay EBITDA), maybe staple a few such companies together with leveraged buy-outs, then resell the whole bundle for more than they paid.
From experience, they don't give a single crap whether the resulting mess still functions. They care about selling the company for more than they bought it for. That prospect is only tenuously and at best accidentally related to whether the company still functions.
The private equity companies I've had to deal with were full of braindead MBA spreadsheet monkeys and used car salesmen. Their chief differentiator was that they worked 80 hours a week and were enthusiastic about laying people off without much deliberation.
Thinking private equity is "more intelligent" than business owners is like thinking house flippers are "more intelligent" than home owners. No. They know how to rip out carpet and replace it with laminate on the cheap. They know how to cut corners and hide it. They know buyers will over value a fresh veneer of paint. They don't give a shit about the long-term health or value of the house. They are not better stewards of houses. They specialize in short-term profit maximization and that is literally it.
sailfast 2 hours ago | parent
The problem with healthcare “economics” is that providing high quality care is likely not as profitable as middling care, or sub-standard care.
You say that economics is meant to deliver cheap quality goods, but in reality here economics for PE is value extraction and has nothing to do with consumer good at all - unless of course there’s more profit there. Most of the time, there isn’t.
mhh__ 1 hour ago | parent
macintux 1 hour ago | parent
It survived, then thrived, by making its products so appealing that customers would buy them anyway.
So, effectively, both.
scythe 2 hours ago | parent
None of the private equity chains with the sans-serif fonts, simplified logos and trisyllabic names are doing this, though. It's bad marketing. Patients don't want to walk outside to an MRI machine in the parking lot. It feels sketchy. Never mind that they score just as well on the ACR image quality tests as the in-room machines. Who the hell knows what that is?
In reality, it's the county hospitals and big universities that use them! Places that have in-house physicists who can argue for what really makes sense in practice. A major problem with healthcare as a business is that the customer does not usually understand the product, but they still need to buy it, and there are time constraints.
toast0 59 minutes ago | parent
Seems like you could build a hallway around the trailer; if you do it right, nobody knows it's a trailer in the middle of the building. If you do it really well, you can still pull the trailer out.
Panzer04 2 hours ago | parent
Maybe they find a buyer in a doctor, maybe they don't, but PE provides them an exit that keeps the practice operating in the community.
Many people don't really run businesses efficiently. There was an interesting video I saw recently where a sole doctor practice made a few changes to their workflow that allowed them to hire more doctors and handle 2x as many people - I would expect a PE firm would pursue similar changes that help increase the number of people they can service, increasing competitiveness and lowering prices in the long run.
I don't know how these tradeoffs interact with patient care, but I wouldn't inherently expect PE to be worse at this than any other operating model.
maxerickson 1 hour ago | parent
Ultimately, I think the issue is when people making decisions are able to treat the impact as an abstraction.
markdown 1 hour ago | parent
My sweet summer child...
sandeepkd 1 hour ago | parent
phkahler 24 minutes ago | parent
what 1 hour ago | parent
PE is scourge in this space. They’ve probably taken over every dental office already and now they push unnecessary procedures and whatever your insurance will bear just because.
caminante 36 minutes ago | parent
s1artibartfast 32 minutes ago | parent
apothegm 28 minutes ago | parent
Most private practices are small groups, not individuals. It absolutely sucks to have to find a new doctor who’s a good fit for you, when you’ve been seeing the same person for years or even decades. Usually when your doctor retires you rely on them to make a recommendation for a replacement. Usually that’s another partner in their same practice. At the very least, you (historically) expect them to sell the practice to someone they think is a worthy successor. Patients are fairly sticky.
And many of these PE sales require the selling partner to stay on for at least a year or two to ease the patients through the transition and so the patients get used to the changes before the doctor actually retires. That way, sticking around after the doctor retires doesn’t feel like such an upheaval.
phkahler 27 minutes ago | parent
If the practice is to continue, there must still be practitioners working there. Id prefer they buy out the one retiring, but the retiree can sell to whoever they want.
whatsThisBtn4 11 minutes ago | parent
One is ambitious, the other is a nepo baby.
w29UiIm2Xz 2 hours ago | parent
HaloZero 2 hours ago | parent
Xirdus 3 minutes ago | parent
tbrownaw 1 hour ago | parent
Step back and look at what it fundamentally is.
Person A has a business they want to sell.
Person B has a pile of money and thinks that that business is (or can be) a good investment.
That's it.
So, what happens if person A is prohibited from selling their business? Are they forced to keep working because they don't have enough other savings to retire on? Do they shut the business down in order to retire? Something else?
.
Calls to ban private equity are attempts to play "shoot the messenger".
sandeepkd 1 hour ago | parent
0xDEAFBEAD 57 minutes ago | parent
sandeepkd 39 minutes ago | parent
Xirdus 18 minutes ago | parent
TylerE 25 minutes ago | parent
what 1 hour ago | parent
Xirdus 24 minutes ago | parent
I actually made that thought experiment. Disallow selling businesses. Disallow selling shares. Disallow stock market. Disallow mergers. The only way to acquire a business is to found it or to inherit it. The only way to quit a business is to shut it all down, with all assets liquidated, all liabilities settled, and all contracts terminated.
The main downside is that it's harder for to make money. Otherwise... I only see positives. And no, it wouldn't kill innovation. The investors would just have to invest the old fashioned way - by founding companies or expanding their existing businesses. As for job security, we already don't have it in the current system.
afavour 1 hour ago | parent
One specific practise I’d like to see banned is private equity buying companies with debt the company then assumes. It staggers me that it’s legal.
lazide 1 hour ago | parent
ironSkillet 1 hour ago | parent
0xDEAFBEAD 55 minutes ago | parent
TylerE 23 minutes ago | parent
lazide 23 minutes ago | parent
then they extract as much cash as possible while the debt ballons. so called ‘extracting brand value’.
thaumasiotes 1 hour ago | parent
What alternative are you imagining?
dghlsakjg 1 hour ago | parent
andsoitis 1 hour ago | parent
PE attacks organizational sclerosis, can save companies that otherwise slowly deteriorate, reallocates resources faster, creates an unusually powerful form of corporate governance, Debt can impose useful discipline, can provide capabilities that smaller companies couldn't build themselves.
A society doesn't necessarily benefit from preserving every existing job. It benefits from creating increasingly productive jobs.
pixl97 1 hour ago | parent
This needs to be defined a little bit better.
If I own a hospital that makes infinite money and every patient that comes to it dies the economy measures this is infinite productivity. This is contrived, but really matches some of what we see in real life.
This is why making a measurement a target can be horrifically destructive and contrary to the actual goal society wants.
The west doesn't seem to believe in the idea of social stability over increased profits which can lead to things like corporations being the social structure that is optimized for rather than the wellbeing of the individuals it contains. Left to run out of control the society can collapse.
andsoitis 1 hour ago | parent
You wouldn't have any business if all, or many, of your patients die.
AngryData 1 hour ago | parent
metiscus 1 hour ago | parent
Avicebron 1 hour ago | parent
The west has been an oligarchy for several decades at least, so it's not that people in the west don't believe in social stability, it's that they are living in the hollowed out shell of the former "company" where that doesn't exist. We need to optimize for the people's prosperity and well being.
andsoitis 57 minutes ago | parent
What statistics are you looking at that makes you draw the conclusion that people are WORSE off today than, say, 20, 30, 40, years ago?
toast0 1 hour ago | parent
This is valuable for business owners, because it gives them a way to get the value out of a failing business without having to ride it all the way into the ground.
It's valuable for consumers because it provides locations to shop for halloween supplies.
snapplebobapple 1 hour ago | parent
dghlsakjg 1 hour ago | parent
The steelman argument is that private equity is just property rights. If I build a business I get to decide what to do with it.
What most people are arguing against is a specific kind of PE where an institutional investor will either use aggressive financial engineering to force a profit, even if it kills the business, or when those same investors aggregate market share to the point where it is detrimental to consumers. Sprinkle in a little bit of heartless MBA bullshit, and that is what people specifically don’t like.
caminante 30 minutes ago | parent
In medicine, it's a solution for someone who wants liquidity (buy kids new home, help local dog shelter, add a new mistress) and doesn't want to retire, yet.
The problem is that the terms are custom and YMMV as an existing patient of said practice.
holmesworcester 19 minutes ago | parent
If there's some business that's getting by but the land it's on is more valuable (e.g. for housing) than the business, some investors buy the business, sell the land, make the business account for the land value, wind the business down if it can't, and there are apartments there a few years later.
dghlsakjg 9 minutes ago | parent
> The steelman argument is that private equity is just property rights. If I build a business I get to decide what to do with it.
DonsDiscountGas 57 minutes ago | parent
balderdash 48 minutes ago | parent
whatsThisBtn4 12 minutes ago | parent
Probably the biggest problem with medical is that it's incredibly regulated for the industry's benefit.
claytongulick 5 minutes ago | parent
From fee-splitting prohibitions to FDA regulated medical devices, almost all of the day to day regulations I've dealt with in healthcare are squarely aimed at ensuring safety, protecting privacy, preventing fraud and controlling costs.
czhu12 1 minute ago | parent
Gift link: https://www.economist.com/podcasts/2026/02/19/a-love-letter-...
thrance 3 hours ago | parent
djfobbz 2 hours ago | parent
janalsncm 2 hours ago | parent
I am sure most workers would prefer to get that extra 11% as a cash raise, but because healthcare costs are out of control the same care costs 11% more.
Certainly some companies will throw up their arms and hire someone overseas instead.
Avicebron 2 hours ago | parent
smallmancontrov 2 hours ago | parent
Avicebron 1 hour ago | parent
dd8601fn 2 hours ago | parent
The usual complaint is going full extractive mode, desperately squeezing profit and selling inside 3-7 years.
So, yeah, we can keep private investment. But they're fucking stuck with it, trying to maintain a healthy business for 20 years.
elliotto 2 hours ago | parent
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-27/nsw-government-joes-l...
ern 1 hour ago | parent
Approximately 45% of GPs in Australia work in practices owned by private companies
https://www.monash.edu/business/che/impact-and-engagement/re...
bmurphy1976 1 hour ago | parent
dghlsakjg 1 hour ago | parent
mhh__ 2 hours ago | parent
nielsbot 2 hours ago | parent
mhh__ 2 hours ago | parent
Ask an American hospital how much something costs - you will get a completely fake price back, this is a sign of a totally broken market.
riddley 2 hours ago | parent
vjvjvjvjghv 2 hours ago | parent
A) can probably only be fixed with regulation. Why would hospitals and insurance otherwise make prices transparent? The current state serves them really well.
mhh__ 1 hour ago | parent
drknownuffin 2 hours ago | parent
mhh__ 1 hour ago | parent
And why is this so prevalent? It's subject to huge subsidy and regulatory capture
BugsJustFindMe 1 hour ago | parent
Because the law doesn't force them not to?
It's very wild to me that you're like "This organization is lying to me, so what we need less of is people telling them what to do."
BugsJustFindMe 1 hour ago | parent
You think the government tells hospitals to lie to you? The hospitals lie because the government doesn't force them not to. Laissez-faire capitalism causes that. Regulation is needed to fix it.
mhh__ 1 hour ago | parent
BugsJustFindMe 1 hour ago | parent
What do you think would force hospitals to give you real prices if not the law?
AngryData 1 hour ago | parent
mentalgear 2 hours ago | parent
It's important to fight it now before it is too late and other places also fall apart into a degraded, predatory, dystopian US system !
JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent
The short-term fix is banning PE. The long-term one is restricting the leverage these groups can take. Then put limits on upstream leverage. We have these across our economy. We just don’t apply them to this sector.
kasey_junk 1 hour ago | parent
Most state bar associations require a lawyer (or group of them) to own law firms. That _doesnt_ prevent law firms from doing crazy deals to gain liquidity for their partners, including from private equity.
Dictating who has to “own” something just incentivizes people to separate ownership from financial benefit. In most cases that’s just plain worse than letting real ownership happen.
If there is a business practice you don’t like, regulate the practice, not the corporate structure.
frisco 2 hours ago | parent
Medicine is already held back enough by the lack of ability to use debt to finance its sales, unlike almost every other industry; you can repossess a car but you can't repo an implant or administered drug, forcing everything to be paid for in cash upfront. Medicine needs as much access to capital as it can get.
BugsJustFindMe 2 hours ago | parent
Injecting PE into healthcare is what made it vastly worse for everyone in the first place. You can't have it both ways.
frisco 2 hours ago | parent
bonsai_spool 1 hour ago | parent
VC's can still fund companies that are making expensive new products.
Banks (and PE...) can still underwrite loans for these things.
We have many solutions for capex-intensive businesses and have had these for over four hundred years. LBO-type PE is not even fifty years old yet
frisco 27 minutes ago | parent
drknownuffin 2 hours ago | parent
frisco 2 hours ago | parent
vjvjvjvjghv 2 hours ago | parent
"Innovation" as in marketing expenses and stock buybacks?
BLKNSLVR 1 hour ago | parent
Apologies if an AI summary is offensive to some, but here we go:
> The US is a world leader in advanced and specialist medicine, but its overall system for providing affordable, accessible, equitable medical care to its citizens ranks poorly—last among the 10 comparable high-income countries in the strongest recent comparison.
Both sources are the same site:
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/2024-09...
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2...
naveen99 2 hours ago | parent
Buttons840 25 minutes ago | parent
Private Equity can afford to have people sitting around all day figuring out tricks and optimizations to save a buck here and there, and this is a power imbalance because the plebs care about things like spending time with their family, and they don't spend all their time trying to save a buck.
Maybe one day the AIs will optimize for us while we spend time with our families. And if a new vet opens that costs $15 less, the AI will route customers to the new business, driving prices down, until we reach 0 profit margin across all industries.
There's probably like a 10 trillion dollar incentive to not allow AI to truly work on behalf of individuals though, so we'll see what happens. For instance, just look at the ad industry alone; if AIs are shopping truly on behalf of individuals, and this becomes wide spread, then the ad industry is just gone.
throwaway13337 1 hour ago | parent
They like companies with some kind of moat that makes it hard to unseat them. Basically, companies where there is no alternative for the consumer. That way, they can inflict abuse but know there will be nowhere to run.
There are two different ways to achieve this. Monopoly and regulation. Hospitals have both government granted locational monopoly and tons of regulations that make it impossible to compete.
Private equity is the symptom, not the disease.
Until we get at the disease, new monsters will be born with different name filling the same ecological niche. It's economic natural selection played out in the environment we created.
Waterluvian 54 minutes ago | parent
claytongulick 12 minutes ago | parent
"For profit" isn't really the problem, fee for service is.
Value based arrangements and capitated payment structures are real improvements.
When you don't have any market forces constraining utilization, you get massive access problems.
Gigachad 6 minutes ago | parent
I can tell you I am infinitely more happy living with the Australian medical system than what the US has even if it isn’t flawless with zero issues left to deal with.
mmooss 1 hour ago | parent
Like banks, failure of a healthcare institution can be destructive for its customers and the community. If a bank goes under, especially a significant one for the community, regulators see that it's acquired by a surviving institution - often with only a weekend of downtime.
balderdash 57 minutes ago | parent
twoodfin 47 minutes ago | parent
There’s a reason very few guild-like professions have survived to the present day.
nargella 55 minutes ago | parent
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 43 minutes ago | parent
Younger veterinarians are drowning in school debt and can't buy the practices from the older folks that are retiring. So, private equity is basically snatching all of them up right now, betting that childless millennials are going to pay tons of money on veterinary care when their pandemic pups begin to reach end-of-life.
They're going to cut wages for all the staff, and hike all the prices, because unlike with human medical care, there's hardly any regulation (yet).
beloch 33 minutes ago | parent
To put humans through this kind of misaligned system is the stuff of nightmares.
limagnolia 4 minutes ago | parent
selectodude 1 minute ago | parent
s1artibartfast 37 minutes ago | parent