Thread

Bill to Ban Private Equity from Owning Medical Practices

509 points · 384 comments · paimapi

NegativeK · 1789944184 · focus · HN ↗
Can someone steelman private equity, please? I'm honestly looking for the upsides (for non-investors) of when PE moves into an industry like medicine and begins buying up businesses that traditionally aren't already large chains.
I already hear the downsides frequently from someone whose work is directly affected.
1. twoodfin · 1789944333 · focus · HN ↗
  The upside is to the folks who sold the businesses they owned.
  Should they be outlawed from selling to certain classes of investor? Which?
  1. Grombobulous · 1789944624 · focus · HN ↗
    It should be more about making certain levels of consolidation and deep erosion of local ownership illegal.
    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.
    furytrader · 1789945966 · focus · HN ↗
    "We’ve allowed Amazon and Ticketmaster and Walmart to exist and they shouldn’t exist in their present form."
    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?
    Grombobulous · 1789946506 · focus · HN ↗
    And the employer with the largest amount of employees using SNAP benefits is…
    Walmart is subsidized by the government to the tune of $2,000 per employee due to their low wages: <a href="https://rmfu.org/taxpayer-dollars-subsidize-wal-mart/" rel="nofollow">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 <a href="https://mafainsurance.com/how-many-walmart-employees-are-on-medicaid.html" rel="nofollow">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 · 1789947679 · focus · HN ↗
    >And the employer with the largest amount of employees using SNAP benefits is…
    >Walmart is subsidized by the government to the tune of $2,000 per employee due to their low wages: <a href="https://rmfu.org/taxpayer-dollars-subsidize-wal-mart/" rel="nofollow">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 · 1789951783 · focus · HN ↗
    Walmart is able to offer lower prices because it does not pay its employees enough. The people being hurt is the society at large that has to allocate taxes towards SNAP and other social benefits so that Walmart can continue to underpay people. Those resources could go to other programs. That is why Walmart is bad.
    alex43578 · 1789957506 · focus · HN ↗
    Walmart is paying what people are willing to work for. The "greeter" standing at the door is not creating $25 an hour in economic value. The biggest issue is we as a society have overextended SNAP and social benefits, trying to equalize outcomes, rather than recognize that entitlements should be a last resort and a safety net against things like starvation. Someone should not weigh 275 on SNAP.
    notrustincloud · 1789959734 · focus · HN ↗
    > Someone should not weigh 275 on SNAP.
    Does SNAP need a better system to provide healthy food? yes.
    Should employers be required to provide sufficient earnings such that employees do not require SNAP? Also, yes.
    Is blaming employees who are on SNAP due to Walmart overhiring and cutting hours of at the threshold where the earnings would cross into full time with federally regulated benefits in order to pass the cost of operations to the public acceptable via absurd reductive reasoning a bald case of blaming the victims? Yes.
    I'm not sure whether you are pretending that Walmart's practices are acceptable, due to a willful disregard for the complexity of the larger systemic failures that permit corporate abuse, or due to simple ignorance.
    I'm not sure which looks worse, but neither makes you seem compassionate. Though the fat shaming does make you look like an ass.
    alex43578 · 1789977124 · focus · HN ↗
    >Does SNAP need a better system to provide healthy food? yes.
    Yes, SNAP absolutely should not enable unhealthy consumption, especially because the majority of those diseases of affluence just hit taxpayers again via Medicaid spending.
    >Should employers be required to provide sufficient earnings such that employees do not require SNAP? Also, yes.
    The thrifty food plan from the USDA puts weekly food costs at about $75 for a man and about $60 for a woman. Walmart's company wide minimum pay is $14 per hour. Minus a bit for taxes, add a bit back for EITC/other tax credits, and you are covering a week of food in less than 8 hours of work. They have sufficient earnings. They choose to spend the earnings elsewhere because taxpayers are subsidizing their food.
    >Is blaming employees who are on SNAP due to Walmart overhiring and cutting hours of at the threshold where the earnings would cross into full time with federally regulated benefits in order to pass the cost of operations to the public acceptable via absurd reductive reasoning a bald case of blaming the victims? Yes.
    Walmart is under no obligation to hire them as full time employees. They are free to accept a different job, negotiate a contract for full time employment, etc. They aren't a "victim" because the job they accepted doesn't meet every one of your standards. They are assumably mentally competent adults who made their own decisions and are free to make different decisions at any time.
    >I'm not sure whether you are pretending that Walmart's practices are acceptable, due to a willful disregard for the complexity of the larger systemic failures that permit corporate abuse, or due to simple ignorance.
    Walmart's practices are acceptable. It's incredible to think that a job offering double the federal minimum wage (or more), in a reasonably safe, air conditioned environment, along with retirement matching, employee discounts, and even paid tuition/books is somehow corporate abuse.
    How much do you think stocking a shelf is worth?
    >I'm not sure which looks worse, but neither makes you seem compassionate. Though the fat shaming does make you look like an ass.
    Oh no, will they have to eat their hurt feelings?
    notrustincloud · 1790085977 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.