this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
911 points (97.9% liked)

Games

38505 readers
1306 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here and here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
911
Palworld confirms ‘disappointing’ game changes forced by Pokémon lawsuit (www.videogameschronicle.com)
submitted 5 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
259 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

With the implementation of Patch v0.5.5 this week, we must make yet another compromise. From this patch onward, gliding will be performed using a glider rather than with Pals. Pals in the player’s team will still provide passive buffs to gliding, but players will now need to have a glider in their inventory in order to glide.

How lame. Japan needs to fix its patent laws, it's ridiculous Nintendo owns the simple concept of using an animal to fly.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

So you’d rather give power to corporations.

If the market is sufficiently competitive, yes, I trust corporations more than governments. I firmly believe giving more power to governments results in more monopolies, generally speaking, because it creates an opportunity for the larger players to lobby for ways to create barriers to competition.

That's a pretty broad statement though, and there are certainly cases where I would prefer the government to step in.

monopsony/single-payer system where all the buyers effectively are unionized

I don't think that's true. I think you're making an assumption that the payer has an incentive to reduce costs, but I really don't think that's the case. What they do have is a lot of power over pricing, and while that could be used to force producers to reduce costs, it can also be used to shift costs onto taxpayers in exchange for favors from the companies providing the services.

That's quite similar to the current military industrial complex, the military is the only purchaser of these goods, so the suppliers can largely set their prices. A monopsony means the value of making a deal is massive for a company because they get access to a massive market, which also means the value of lobbying to get that deal is also high.

So I really don't trust that a single payer system would actually work in the US to reduce total healthcare costs, it'll just hide it. If we want to actually cut healthcare costs, we need to fix a number of things, such as:

  • malpractice suits - providers need expensive insurance plans and hesitate to provide certain types of care (i.e. need more tests even though they're very confident in their diagnosis)
  • pharmaceutical and medical device patent system, and subsequent lobbying to set regulations to hedge against competition
  • backroom deals between insurance companies and care providers where both sides get a "win" (provider inflates prices so insurance rep can report that they're getting a deal by getting a discount)
  • whatever is causing ambulances to be super expensive

The problems are vast and I think single payer would likely just sweep them under the rug. We either need socialized healthcare or maximum transparency, single payer would just be a disappointment.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

If the market is sufficiently competitive, yes, I trust corporations more than governments.

Competition naturally degrades over time as companies go out of business and consolidate. And capital interests fight tooth and nail against large monopolies being split back up. Its more or less a miracle that it's ever happened at all and it would be naive to think it'll ever happen again.

If the market is sufficiently competitive, yes, I trust corporations more than governments.

I don’t think that’s true. I think you’re making an assumption that the payer has an incentive to reduce costs, but I really don’t think that’s the case. What they do have is a lot of power over pricing, and while that could be used to force producers to reduce costs, it can also be used to shift costs onto taxpayers in exchange for favors from the companies providing the services.

Do you think a more direct "medical patient union" would work? Skipping a government intermediary?

socialized healthcare

I mean, I'd prefer socialized healthcare over single payer. Single payer for me is merely an acceptable middle ground. As would having a proper public option next to private care (though admittedly that would slowly erode from lobbying).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

Competition naturally degrades over time as companies go out of business and consolidate.

And it naturally improves over time as companies challenge established players and "distupt" the market. As long as the barrier to entry remains sufficiently low, there's no reason for a net degradation in competition.

Large companies tend to become less efficient. Yes, they have economies of scale, but they tend to scare away innovators, so they switch to lobbying to maintain their edge.

The correct approach IMO is to counter the lobbying efforts of large orgs, and that means stripping governments of a lot of their power. Regulations tend to result in more monopolies, requiring antitrust to fix, and as you noted, that's extremely rare.

Do you think a more direct “medical patient union” would work? Skipping a government intermediary?

Yeah, that can work. I'm thinking of having your primary care orovider offer your "insurance" policy, and they'd be on the hook to fund any procedures you need. So they have an incentive to keep you healthy, and that agreement could be a legal obligation that the doctor is doing their best to keep you healthy.

I do think we should socialize emergency services though. If a paramedic determines you need an ambulance ride, that should be free.

I’d prefer socialized healthcare over single payer

I prefer privatized care with transparency in pricing across the board, shortened patent durations, and some government assistance for the poor. But failing that, socialized care is probably the next best. Anything in the middle just breeds corruption.