1914
How medical insurance works
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
1914 points (99.3% liked)
Microblog Memes
6036 readers
1093 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Shouldn’t that patent have expired by now?
This kind of thing is why it bothers me when people complain about “free market medicine”.
A market where only one entity is allowed to build MRI machines, or license the tech to others to build, is not a free market. That’s a government-enforced monopoly.
Even the fact that a patient can’t just go get their own MRI at Scans-R-Us, but needs to get a doctor’s referral first, is a huge departure from what an actually free market for medicine would look like.
It's an evolving technology. We get new patents with every iteration.
If you spend a few years in Business School getting your MBA, you get an earful about how and why patent law exists. The core argument is that private investment is predicated on returns and we can't have nice things unless we have men with guns come for the property and freedom of anyone who "steals an idea".
But more practically, this shit is just a racket. Lots of lobbyist money changes hands to make sure the decks at the casino are properly stacked. Medical treatment is just another opportunity to apply leverage through debt to control other people.
I understand the value of a patent system, but patents should expire.
Is there some reason why previous-generation technology, like the tech being used for MRIs in the 90s, can’t be used to manufacture more competitively-priced machines?
Like, is there a law specifying that the new technology must be used for an MRI to be usable as a diagnostic tool?
They do. It's just that they can be renewed under various circumstances, typically as an incentive to increase production.
You need a certain amount of industrial capital geared towards making these machines and GE is the only one that really does (excepting manufacturers overseas). A big part of the problem is that we don't have a good mechanism for introducing new small businesses to the market. You really need to know someone that needs a steady number of MRI machines on a regular basis to make a new MRI factory worth it, and unless you have that business connection you have no buyers.
So you’d need to have a single integrated business, just to get all that information in-house.
The same company could build the machines, and sell the MRI scanning service.
Then you’d need a lot of conversations with various doctor’s offices.
But there are probably lots of places who’d rather be able to provide patients with a lower-cost, lower-quality MRI, so it should be possible to collect a number of providers saying “if such a service exists, I’ll use it”.
My guess is there’s gonna be a lot of government money available soon for people who want to build new manufacturing capability in the US