Rad Onc Twitter

[Neuronix]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

lol RickyScott seems like an AI chatbot for buzzwords

I can assure you there's a real person there, and I'd appreciate it if we not go into personal attacks like this.

Another friend of mine was accused in another thread of not being a real person, which is hilarious, but ultimately dehumanizing.

 

[RickyScott]

i know 2 radoncs (including one from nearby university) that have testified as expert witnesses in space oar lawsuits. Not sure how to do a national search of cases filed.

 

[TheWallnerus]

I can assure you there's a real person there, and I'd appreciate it if we not go into personal attacks like this

What I think of anytime anyone says it wasn’t personal

 

[communitydoc13]

Having spent a lot of my life in ground zero for climate change and the third world, the delivery of radiation is largely unaffected by climate change. Poverty due to corruption and lack of human capital is primary driver of lack of all medical services in third world nations. Third worldism is a real political philosophy that blames all grievances on the west. Ie a corrupt Marxist third world country with a median iq of 75 blames lack of medical resources on climate change.

Naming the Threat: Third-Worldism

“If tolerance is born of doubt, let us teach everyone to doubt all the models and utopias, to challenge all the prophets of redemption and the heralds of catastrophe.

www.zinebriboua.com

Man...defining third worldism via the Hudson Institute.

but ultimately dehumanizing.

a corrupt Marxist third world country with a median iq of 75

dehumanizing...

so effing frail.

 

[RadOncMegatron]

I can assure you there's a real person there, and I'd appreciate it if we not go into personal attacks like this.

Another friend of mine was accused in another thread of not being a real person, which is hilarious, but ultimately dehumanizing.

It is literally dehumanizing lol. Sorry just had to put that out there.

 

[drowsy12]

 

[RickyScott]

about a year ago, an ex radonc chairman who had a led a department for many years basically died in his office. (Continued to come into work despite stage 4 nsclc). Docs wanted to honor him with a plaque. This pps exempt center refused to pay. Prestige.

 

[Doctorer]

Hearing rumors that Reflexion is dead and/or on life support. Anyone else?

 

[medgator]

Hearing rumors that Reflexion is dead and/or on life support. Anyone else?

Thread 'Reflexion —> Bankruptcy?'

Aug 29, 2026

Looks like RefleXion may basically be done. A Glassdoor post from 8/25, supposedly from their Director of QA, says they laid off almost everyone on 8/21 and are down to ~45 people from >300 a few years ago. Apparently only 12 systems were ever sold, and some of the remaining staff are just dealing with source returns, chillers, and shutdown-type work.

Obviously Glassdoor is anonymous, and I haven’t seen an actual bankruptcy filing yet, but this sounds a lot more like winding the place down than “restructuring.”

Not that surprising. The machine was fascinating technology that solved a...

• Gfunk6
• Replies: 7
• Forum: Radiation Oncology

• 

 

[Neuronix]

about a year ago, an ex radonc chairman who had a led a department for many years basically died in his office. (Continued to come into work despite stage 4 nsclc). Docs wanted to honor him with a plaque. This pps exempt center refused to pay. Prestige.

I know which center you’re referring to, and they just have zero respect for their physicians.

I doubt that it has anything to do with the money. The docs would pay.

It’s more about sending a message that rad oncs are weak and easily replaced.

 

[drowsy12]

Healthcare is just one example of this

It’s just funny because many will ignore or defend it in all other arenas other than what affects them

 

[TheWallnerus]

Healthcare is just one example of this

It’s just funny because many will ignore or defend it in all other arenas other than what affects them

Who defends that healthcare is a free market or ignores it’s not.

 

[DoctwoB]

The FT fracas continues!

I love Ryckman. The guy is is guileless. But two quotes remain forefront of mind:

"History is written by the winners*." - George Orwell
"I have always depended on the kindness of strangers." - Blanche DuBois

Probably shouldn't bring up that IMRT parachuted into rad onc clinics circa 2000-2005 and became the ~100% used RT treatment for prostate cancer based on little to no clinical data. Or that "IMRT" can now mean IMRT (and a rectal spacer, sotto voce 😉)


View attachment 423545

* diagnosers

View attachment 423547

Imma just leave this here . . .

10-year oncological outcomes of EBRT versus HIFU for stage II prostate cancer: a multicenter Chang Gung research database (CGRD) study with inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis - International Urology and Nephrology

Background To evaluate oncological outcome of external beam radiation therapy(EBRT) versus high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) in patients with stage II prostate cancer. Materials and methods We retrospectively reviewed patients with stage II prostate cancer from the Chang Gung Research...

link.springer.com

 

[Chartreuse Wombat]

Imma just leave this here . . .

10-year oncological outcomes of EBRT versus HIFU for stage II prostate cancer: a multicenter Chang Gung research database (CGRD) study with inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis - International Urology and Nephrology

Background To evaluate oncological outcome of external beam radiation therapy(EBRT) versus high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) in patients with stage II prostate cancer. Materials and methods We retrospectively reviewed patients with stage II prostate cancer from the Chang Gung Research...

link.springer.com

IPTW does not an RCT make.

 

[TheWallnerus]

IPTW does not an RCT make.

But it’s got 10 year outcomes

And electrolytes too probably

 

[drowsy12]

Who defends that healthcare is a free market or ignores it’s not.

More that people defend ‘free market’ economics and ignore how much it’s not really a free market, except when it comes to healthcare, on this board

 

[medgator]

Healthcare is just one example of this

It’s just funny because many will ignore or defend it in all other arenas other than what affects them

No ****. One thing the current admin got right. Not sure how much it went into practice though

What Hospitals Must Know About the Hospital Price Transparency Executive Order—and How to Comply

Did you catch the new price transparency executive order? Are you ready for stricter enforcement in 90 days? Learn how we’ve helped over 500 hospitals comply… ...

www.healthcatalyst.com

 

[Neuronix]

I’m in a certificate of need state. It is a rigged and anti-competitive market. Anyone arguing that we have a free market in this state is insane.

 

[communitydoc13]

It is a rigged and anti-competitive market. Anyone arguing that we have a free market in this state is insane.

I think very few of us want a true market driven health care system. (Maybe OTN could compete).

It's silly to think of health care in terms of free markets when the government is the major payor and sets the prices. I am personally grateful for this arrangement. I could never compete in a true free market system (nor would I want to).

Without government credentialism and regulation we would be hosed. Just fungible parts of the market meatgrinder.

Under Friedman's free market principles, you would be getting credentialed by Wallner's private, for-profit credentialling program or not at all, competing with venture capital floated clinics without a single MD in them.

Even under our present (not so free) market, it's a fantasy that the type of capital docs have can compete with the type of capital that professional capitalists (see PE) have (exempting a few families).

We are a little bit of a vestige of the guild system (remarkable, given that the real rise of doctoring is mostly post-industrial).

Go guilds! (although some people call us cartels).

 

[maxxor]

I think very few of us want a true market driven health care system. (Maybe OTN could compete).

It's silly to think of health care in terms of free markets when the government is the major payor and sets the prices. I am personally grateful for this arrangement. I could never compete in a true free market system (nor would I want to).

Without government credentialism and regulation we would be hosed. Just fungible parts of the market meatgrinder.

Under Friedman's free market principles, you would be getting credentialed by Wallner's private, for-profit credentialling program or not at all, competing with venture capital floated clinics without a single MD in them.

Even under our present (not so free) market, it's a fantasy that the type of capital docs have can compete with the type of capital that professional capitalists (see PE) have (exempting a few families).

We are a little bit of a vestige of the guild system (remarkable, given that the real rise of doctoring is mostly post-industrial).

Go guilds! (although some people call us cartels).

I dunno man, in strict CON states, it is literally illegal for us to open our own practices, buy scanners / radiation equipment, etc.

The only people who can afford the legal shenanigans to get a new certificate are PE or mega hospital chains.

 

[communitydoc13]

in strict CON states, it is literally illegal for us to open our own practices, buy scanners / radiation equipment, etc.

The CON issue is a small factor regarding how "free market" our system is.

Critics of CON rightly consider cost and access impacts.

CON can absolutely be a weapon of the large system (particularly academics). There is evidence that allowing community practices to proliferate reduces cost per fraction for XRT.

A rationale for common private practice behavior (maximizing charges/fractionation/treatment on all patients) is that the total economic impact is small compared to pricing graft by big (often academic) places. While the rationale is poor, the numerical argument is correct IMO.

I am aware of several FL private practices where behavior is absurd. Still, FL has a relatively low cost per fraction regarding XRT.

CON is a double-edged thing. Some of us are protected by CON. Sometimes patients are protected by CON.

For instance, in my state, hyperbaric oxygen therapy is not subject to CON (XRT pretty much is but certainly was not regarding superficial type stuff).

...so, we now have a guy marketing HBO directly to patients and either charging OOP or looking for the most specious indications for insurance payment (like you had therapeutic radiation 6 months prior...even though you are fine).

...we had absurd and predatory application of image guided XRT for skin cancers for a while (somewhat improved with new payment schedule by CMS).

 

[WildRivers]

I cannot say how much I hate Michigan's CoN rule. It is entirely corrupt and it ends up being self-dealing between the big players, until of course, protons come up.

U of M wants them bad. Of course Beaumont (Corewell) and Flint are going to fight this. But, this has nothing to do with medical necessity or numbers of patients. It's all a turf war. In my opinion, if the institution is funding it, let em open one and see who ends up winning.

But good luck on starting a center on your own. The big boys will literally line up against you even if you want to put one of up in an underserved area. They will fight you, take the CoN for that area and then put it in a suburb that has 3 linacs already.

It is the worst thing. PET-CT trucks come a half a day a week in same areas, when there is plenty volume to have a unit at a hospital or outpatient center. Instead, we have delays.

But, once you have your CoN, it's game on. The numbers needed to support an additional CoN to add on are quite low and so big systems get bigger, small systems will never obtain a CoN.

I hate CoNs so much. Even though my group is large enough to benefit. We can get 4 more CoN based on our volume

 

[TheWallnerus]

I cannot say how much I hate Michigan's CoN rule. It is entirely corrupt and it ends up being self-dealing between the big players, until of course, protons come up.

U of M wants them bad. Of course Beaumont (Corewell) and Flint are going to fight this. But, this has nothing to do with medical necessity or numbers of patients. It's all a turf war. In my opinion, if the institution is funding it, let em open one and see who ends up winning.

But good luck on starting a center on your own. The big boys will literally line up against you even if you want to put one of up in an underserved area. They will fight you, take the CoN for that area and then put it in a suburb that has 3 linacs already.

It is the worst thing. PET-CT trucks come a half a day a week in same areas, when there is plenty volume to have a unit at a hospital or outpatient center. Instead, we have delays.

But, once you have your CoN, it's game on. The numbers needed to support an additional CoN to add on are quite low and so big systems get bigger, small systems will never obtain a CoN.

I hate CoNs so much. Even though my group is large enough to benefit. We can get 4 more CoN based on our volume

I guess it can always change. Tennessee's CON laws go kaput in 4 months.

we had absurd and predatory application of image guided XRT for skin cancers for a while (somewhat improved with new payment schedule by CMS).

Somewhat?! It went from ~$200 per fraction to ~$10 per whole treatment course.

 

[communitydoc13]

It is entirely corrupt and it ends up being self-dealing between the big players

I'm sure this is true.

Among the problems is the behavior of the Universities themselves, nominally non-profit entities that largely act as corporations (even really good ones).

Consolidation of capital almost always hurts most of us.

Somebody noticed more than 175 years ago...prescient.

"The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it. Centralization of the means of production and socialization of labor at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument."

 

[WildRivers]

it's not a free market -

- the supply - demand curve overlap instead of intersect - i.e doc tells you the service and how much of it you need, independent of price
- massive and costly barriers to entry and credentialism galore. you need a dietary certificate to talk to people about diet? wut
- demand is inelastic; you need insulin and you're not price sensitive - i.e. the other option is death. not like saying, i don't need this new iphone
- severe information asymmetry; despite the "i did my own research"
- the person receiving the service or good is not directly paying for the service or good; they don't experience the marginal cost
- the entity paying for the service or good is not receiving the service or good; they don't experience the marginal benefit
- emergency needs outweigh any market decisions; you need urgent surgery, won't be able to turn down out of network anesthesia
- even in 2026, no price transparency and continued opaque price-bundling
- the government sets prices

I just stop listening when particularly my business friends 'well akshually there's a better way to do this, take for example, Apple .. " GTFO

I'm very free market oriented. but you can't demand free market solutions in a completely distorted un-free market. fix all these problems and then we can try market solutions

 

[madchemist89]

CON in my state is worthless. They let the hospital open up across the street in a rural location.

 

[maxxor]

The CON issue is a small factor regarding how "free market" our system is.

Critics of CON rightly consider cost and access impacts.

CON can absolutely be a weapon of the large system (particularly academics). There is evidence that allowing community practices to proliferate reduces cost per fraction for XRT.

A rationale for common private practice behavior (maximizing charges/fractionation/treatment on all patients) is that the total economic impact is small compared to pricing graft by big (often academic) places. While the rationale is poor, the numerical argument is correct IMO.

I am aware of several FL private practices where behavior is absurd. Still, FL has a relatively low cost per fraction regarding XRT.

CON is a double-edged thing. Some of us are protected by CON. Sometimes patients are protected by CON.

For instance, in my state, hyperbaric oxygen therapy is not subject to CON (XRT pretty much is but certainly was not regarding superficial type stuff).

...so, we now have a guy marketing HBO directly to patients and either charging OOP or looking for the most specious indications for insurance payment (like you had therapeutic radiation 6 months prior...even though you are fine).

...we had absurd and predatory application of image guided XRT for skin cancers for a while (somewhat improved with new payment schedule by CMS).

It’s absolutely not a positive unless you are a grandfathered system with a bunch of CON equipment or are a lawyer.

It was misguided 1980s CMS policy that should have been rescinded nationwide when CMS no longer required it for states.

 

[communitydoc13]

unless you are a grandfathered system

lots of docs

 

[medgator]

lots of docs

Less and less every year

 

[drowsy12]

I'm very free market oriented. but you can't demand free market solutions in a completely distorted un-free market.

I think the point I was making was this. Lot of people are 'free market oriented' but that doesn't really exist across a wide spectrum of fields, medicine is just one part. people here ignore that though.

 

[DoctwoB]

it's not a free market -

- the supply - demand curve overlap instead of intersect - i.e doc tells you the service and how much of it you need, independent of price
- massive and costly barriers to entry and credentialism galore. you need a dietary certificate to talk to people about diet? wut
- demand is inelastic; you need insulin and you're not price sensitive - i.e. the other option is death. not like saying, i don't need this new iphone
- severe information asymmetry; despite the "i did my own research"
- the person receiving the service or good is not directly paying for the service or good; they don't experience the marginal cost
- the entity paying for the service or good is not receiving the service or good; they don't experience the marginal benefit
- emergency needs outweigh any market decisions; you need urgent surgery, won't be able to turn down out of network anesthesia
- even in 2026, no price transparency and continued opaque price-bundling
- the government sets prices

I just stop listening when particularly my business friends 'well akshually there's a better way to do this, take for example, Apple .. " GTFO

I'm very free market oriented. but you can't demand free market solutions in a completely distorted un-free market. fix all these problems and then we can try market solutions

All true. And yet the free-market remains incredibly powerful tool, you just have to acknowledge market failures and create the market accordingly.

Competition works. Healthcare costs much less in southern california then northern california (20-30% lower when excluding drug prices). Why? Much less consolidation, much more competition on pricing. The main issues here are there are a ton of factors driving consolidation both on the physician/clinic/hospital side as well as the insurer side. It's a vicous cycle where when there's only 1-3 insurer's in a market, docs and hospitals have to consolidate or die, and the same is true on the insurance side. Anti-trust law should prevent this, but it hasn't been enforced in this country for decades. Finally all the metrics and rules and compliance favors consolidation by making it cost-prohibitive to run a smaller shop.

The solution (never will happen in political climate, but we're talking theoretical):
1. Break up the big hospital systems and insurers.
2. Set "most-favored nation" pricing schemes. Whatever an insurer pays for a given CPT code must be equal whether it is going to a small private practice or a big mega hospital chain.
3. Reduce regulation that places a high cost of compliance on smaller practices.

What you end up with is competition: Doctors and hospital competing to be on insurer's rolls and so offering better pricing. Insurers competing to get docs in network and to get people to sign up for their product. Some companies will go with lighter coverage for cheap, others will be more full service/offer higher payments to docs/get more premium docs/hospitals in their network.

 

[medgator]

All true. And yet the free-market remains incredibly powerful tool, you just have to acknowledge market failures and create the market accordingly.

Competition works. Healthcare costs much less in southern california then northern california (20-30% lower when excluding drug prices). Why? Much less consolidation, much more competition on pricing. The main issues here are there are a ton of factors driving consolidation both on the physician/clinic/hospital side as well as the insurer side. It's a vicous cycle where when there's only 1-3 insurer's in a market, docs and hospitals have to consolidate or die, and the same is true on the insurance side. Anti-trust law should prevent this, but it hasn't been enforced in this country for decades. Finally all the metrics and rules and compliance favors consolidation by making it cost-prohibitive to run a smaller shop.

The solution (never will happen in political climate, but we're talking theoretical):
1. Break up the big hospital systems and insurers.
2. Set "most-favored nation" pricing schemes. Whatever an insurer pays for a given CPT code must be equal whether it is going to a small private practice or a big mega hospital chain.
3. Reduce regulation that places a high cost of compliance on smaller practices.

What you end up with is competition: Doctors and hospital competing to be on insurer's rolls and so offering better pricing. Insurers competing to get docs in network and to get people to sign up for their product. Some companies will go with lighter coverage for cheap, others will be more full service/offer higher payments to docs/get more premium docs/hospitals in their network.

4. Site neutral equalized reimbursement between Medicare pfs and hopps billing

 

[WildRivers]

All true. And yet the free-market remains incredibly powerful tool, you just have to acknowledge market failures and create the market accordingly.

Competition works. Healthcare costs much less in southern california then northern california (20-30% lower when excluding drug prices). Why? Much less consolidation, much more competition on pricing. The main issues here are there are a ton of factors driving consolidation both on the physician/clinic/hospital side as well as the insurer side. It's a vicous cycle where when there's only 1-3 insurer's in a market, docs and hospitals have to consolidate or die, and the same is true on the insurance side. Anti-trust law should prevent this, but it hasn't been enforced in this country for decades. Finally all the metrics and rules and compliance favors consolidation by making it cost-prohibitive to run a smaller shop.

The solution (never will happen in political climate, but we're talking theoretical):
1. Break up the big hospital systems and insurers.
2. Set "most-favored nation" pricing schemes. Whatever an insurer pays for a given CPT code must be equal whether it is going to a small private practice or a big mega hospital chain.
3. Reduce regulation that places a high cost of compliance on smaller practices.

What you end up with is competition: Doctors and hospital competing to be on insurer's rolls and so offering better pricing. Insurers competing to get docs in network and to get people to sign up for their product. Some companies will go with lighter coverage for cheap, others will be more full service/offer higher payments to docs/get more premium docs/hospitals in their network.

The theoretical is crucial. And ...

1) Is going even more towards consolidation
2) Payment reform going absolutely nowehere
3) In radonc, they've gone in the opposite direction to make it impossible for small practices

I hear you, the free market is the concept that has improved the lives of millions, generated great wealth, but unless you have a framework that allows for it to do it's thing, many free market "solutions" in the health care market have unintended and deleterious outcomes because of the underlying non-market.

 

[communitydoc13]

Competition works.

I agree it can work. Competition among payors as well as competition among providers can be positive.

To my knowledge there are 4 "competitive" health care markets in terms financing healthcare for the general public ...Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland and the US are the four from a brief search. The other three have mandated healthcare for all and have very regulated markets, including disallowing denial of services or making profits from basic services.

France has pretty good non-price competition among providers and a parallel private market but not a competitive insurance market for general care.

None are remotely free market. Places without regulated, government guaranteed healthcare include the US and a bunch of places our present president would call...

German docs make about 60% of what US docs make.

Germany spends roughly 60-65% per capita relative to the US on health care expenditures.

1) Is going even more towards consolidation

This is what the free market does when not properly regulated...this is a general truism

 

[RickyScott]

clearly health care is not a free market. Today’s university nonprofits are modern day robber barons, but now are controlling much greater percentage of our gdp.

 

[TheWallnerus]

clearly health care is not a free market. Today’s university nonprofits are modern day robber barons, but now are controlling much greater percentage of our gdp.

University nonprofits etc are outrageous, but don't forget the elephant(s) in the room.

UnitedHealthcare for example. Has about $450B in annual revenue. About $200B of that comes from CMS, and $100B from state Medicaid programs.

UHC is "free" to do whatever it wants or thinks best in the "free market," but we are not "free" from paying taxes to support them.

Like the Comedian said "It's all a joke."

 

[temujim]

University nonprofits etc are outrageous, but don't forget the elephant(s) in the room.

UnitedHealthcare for example. Has about $450B in annual revenue. About $200B of that comes from CMS, and $100B from state Medicaid programs.

UHC is "free" to do whatever it wants or thinks best in the "free market," but we are not "free" from paying taxes to support them.

Like the Comedian said "It's all a joke."

Obamacare started implementation ~Mar 2010 when UNH at around $30-35/share. Now up >10x; not a bad return.

 

[Chartreuse Wombat]

clearly health care is not a free market. Today’s university nonprofits are modern day robber barons, but now are controlling much greater percentage of our gdp.

Not sure that I agree with the statement that current university non-profits control more %GDP than industrialists did in the 1890s-1910s. Good data is hard to find.

According to Federal Reserve the total U.S. nonprofit sector contributes about 5.2% to 5.3% of the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP), while total overall national healthcare spending accounts for roughly 18.0% of GDP.

Rockefeller (richest of the Gilded Age tycoons estimated at 2-2.5% GDP.) Carnegie and Vanderbilt about 1%, Astor about 0.5%. JP Morgan, Jay Gould in the same ball park. Flagler, Mellon Duke.

Wealth concentration at the very top is probably greater now but I don't think that university non-profits are controlling more of GDP than the Gilded Age robber barons.

 

[drowsy12]

Imagine talking about university nonprofits being the true ‘robber barons’ when we have the actual obvious robber barons like the tech oligarchs lmao.

 

[RickyScott]

Imagine talking about university nonprofits being the true ‘robber barons’ when we have the actual obvious robber barons like the tech oligarchs lmao.

Tech oligarchs created wealth vs nonprofit health care systems that are basically redistributing it. If Elon musk or Jeff bezos creates a novel resource or product that enriches them personally (by one trillion) , and improves my life ( by much less), we all gain. Gdp increases. I should not be envious of them. A lot of people don’t understand the difference between redistribution and creation of wealth. A rising tide raises all the ships. Envy is the root of evil and a lot of politicians (dsa, Bernie sanders, dei proponents traffic in it)

 

[RickyScott]

Not sure that I agree with the statement that current university non-profits control more %GDP than industrialists did in the 1890s-1910s. Good data is hard to find.

According to Federal Reserve the total U.S. nonprofit sector contributes about 5.2% to 5.3% of the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP), while total overall national healthcare spending accounts for roughly 18.0% of GDP.

Rockefeller (richest of the Gilded Age tycoons estimated at 2-2.5% GDP.) Carnegie and Vanderbilt about 1%, Astor about 0.5%. JP Morgan, Jay Gould in the same ball park. Flagler, Mellon Duke.

Wealth concentration at the very top is probably greater now but I don't think that university non-profits are controlling more of GDP than the Gilded Age robber barons.

I was assuming that health care is something like 30% of our gdp and non profits are about half or more of that.

 

[drowsy12]

Tech oligarchs created their wealth vs nonprofit health care systems that are basically redistributing it. If Elon musk or Jeff bezos creates a novel resource Or prosuct that enriches them personally (by one trillion) , and improves my life ( by much less), we all gain, I should not be envious of them. A lot of people don’t understand the difference between redistribution and creation of wealth. A rising tide raises all the ships.

do you know anything about the original 'robber barons' or what they reprersented in society at the time, since you're the one who brought the term up?

Your reply is honestly........something.

 

[RickyScott]

do you know anything about the original 'robber barons' or what they reprersented in society at the time, since you're the one who brought the term up?

Your reply is honestly........something.

Yes, I am a proud alumnus of one their universities. They all seized control of certain industries and created monopolies (railroads, steel, oil) and anti competitive practices. None of them really personally created a “new” product. Overall, I am not sure how much wealth they created. Jeff bezos, bill gates, Elon, Sergei brin all created new products that improved my life.

 

[medgator]

do you know anything about the original 'robber barons' or what they reprersented in society at the time, since you're the one who brought the term up?

Your reply is honestly........something.

Do you use Amazon prime? Bezos essentially built a better mouse trap from the ground up, and it's happened with every iteration and transformation of Amazon from the original days when they were a bookseller.

Until the Tesla model S came to the scene along with a nationwide supercharger network to allow long distance travel, electric cars were considered off the beaten path curiosities (yes, they did exist before and during Tesla's genesis). Now they have transformed the entire industry and sell some of the best selling cars in the country

They essentially created and transformed the industries they compete in even though some would (wrongfully) argue they are monopolies.

 

[drowsy12]

Im not sure im being trolled or not but this has little to nothing to do with the products that have been created. Yes it’s great you can flush your toilet from your car, cool.

But yes Sam Altman and Peter Thiel are your best friends and have a great society planned.

 

[RickyScott]

Im not sure im being trolled or not but this has little to nothing to do with the products that have been created. Yes it’s great you can flush your toilet from your car, cool.

But yes Sam Altman and Peter Thiel are your best friends and have a great society planned.

Not arguing they are great people. Just pointing out that they create wealth and grow gdp that we all benefit from. ( agree that Sam Altman is a pos and something of a grifter.) Economically, nonprofit academic centers are parasites. When UPenn bills 300-400k for protons for g6 prostate cancer, that is an act of harm. Macroscopically, the only way we probably can support these parasitic institutions is due to the economic growth provided by high tech.

There is actual research that when nonprofit monopolistic health systems enter communities, job losses and sucides increase from the Economic damage.

Report: Hospital mergers lead to higher prices, unemployment and deaths

New research shows how hospital mergers have troubling effects that ripple through local communities, despite promises of improved quality.

healthjournalism.org

 

[medgator]

Im not sure im being trolled or not but this has little to nothing to do with the products that have been created. Yes it’s great you can flush your toilet from your car, cool.

But yes Sam Altman and Peter Thiel are your best friends and have a great society planned.

No perfect system. The successful ones have capitalism at the core. Because Elon musk made rocket flights cheaper than nasa could deliver them or created the best sedan in the world that happened to be electric, or bezos gave us prime etc, doesn't make them monopolies

 

[Ray D. Ayshun]

No perfect system. The successful ones have capitalism at the core. Because Elon musk made rocket flights cheaper than nasa could deliver them or created the best sedan in the world that happened to be electric, or bezos gave us prime etc, doesn't make them monopolies

I think we can all agree that capitalism is the best system for creating wealth. It's nearly tautological.

 

[drowsy12]

remember when I said that some people here only seem to care about corporate power and the myth of 'free market' when it comes to healthcare, lol? Couldn't have scripted it better myself.

 

[RickyScott]

remember when I said that some people here only seem to care about corporate power and the myth of 'free market' when it comes to healthcare, lol? Couldn't have scripted it better myself.

There is no reasonable person who believes that health care presently exists in a free market. Even the prices are hidden,