Posted by paimapi 1 day ago
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.
If you want to argue from first principles, and we accept for a moment that granted monopoly is the system we are working in (whether or not you feel it's the optimal regime) then I'd argue there's a clear gap in regulation, as flagrant abuse of the consumer has not been prevented.
This is how industrial barons of the early-mid 20th century operated, as an example, with collusion and price fixing type things. Or hospitals and medical facilities today with certificate-of-need laws enforced by the government.
Monopolies happen due to barriers to entry, and not all barriers to entry are government-created or illegal: network effects, big upfront costs, economies of scale, control of a scarce resource, etc.
Regulation can produce a monopoly, but lots of regulations also exist to keep natural monopolies in check.
Maybe a term like 'natural markets' captures it better? The property being that natural markets/monopolies provide some sort of substrate on which a market can exist.
Good regulations seem to be ones that force open protocol and interoperability of these platforms that get large. This creates a new marketplace abstraction layer that enables new innovation to thrive.
I'm certainly glad that I'm not on AOL's internet. And also glad that internet exists in part due to Bell's telephone system being forced open.
Bad regulations do not seem to have that characteristic. It's too bad we do not have vocabulary to tell them apart. Public good type regulations are more muddy and can be used as a weapon more often than not.
>Regulation can produce a monopoly, but lots of regulations also exist to keep natural monopolies in check.
My favourite example of this is Australias NBNCo.
Every midwit on the street capable of reading a newspaper would tell you, theres a NATURAL MONOPOLY on internet services, which is why Australia needed NBNCo.
However, the enabling legislation also made it a federal crime to overbuild the NBN, because the internet isnt a natural monopoly. We have also had calls to nationalise other fibre networks, and lots of cases of NBN overbuilding other networks.
The truth of it, is that Natural Monopoly is just a thought terminating cliche. There are barriers to entry to markets, but the only kind of monopoly is regulatory. Unless you regulate some dipshit will find a way to sneak a fibre through your power duct or something. If there was enough of an interest, we could have multiple power or water hookups too. There's no reason why we cant have competitive garbage collection, and theres probably somewhere on the planet that does. Even pit and pipe isnt a monopoly, I have seen plenty of places with multiple pit providers.
This is a granted monopoly. It has real positives, such as the same service at 5x less road wear. It should also be obvious that to be positive overall the deal needs to prevent abuse of the public.
If there are 5x as many truck runs, the trash per truck is 1/5th.
The more likely result is that each of the providers runs far fewer trucks than a single provider would because trucks and drivers cost money. Unless the 5 companies figure out how to get the total revenue to 5x, they can't pay for that.
Let's do an example.
Suppose we have a street with 100 houses and it takes 5 houses to fill a truck. Therefore, it will take 20 truck runs to collect that street's trash.
If there is only one trash company, it will need 20 truck runs to service that street.
If there are five trash companies, each with an equal share of those 100 houses, each of those companies needs only 4 runs to service its 20 houses. Why would any of them do more runs?
Yes, the average distance per run may be higher for the 5 companies, but it won't be 5x.
You contradict yourself at the end of the comment. Yes, it could be estimated a linear equation (mx + b) where m is the cost per house and b is the cost per route, roughly. And then you could have a system of which equations, where each row in the system’s matrix corresponds to an additional company.
The optimal result is probably not 1 company, but it’s probably not 1 company per house either
They are given 5-year contracts, but an agency exists to tabulate complaints, reaction time to outages, and so on. If they don't impress the agency near the end of their contract, it will be opened up for market bidding.
Because of this pressure, the monopoly power company has even been known to reduce rates, proving a priori that they are indeed serving the public interest at a commendable level.
Monopolies are the result of failure of competition. There's no "invitation" to compete, but a clear warning that a new entrant will have no chance.
This is why profit seeking organisations aim to become a monopoly as then they are guaranteed profits and can abuse customers as they wish.
It’s fine for a military defense contractor to go a few billion over budget for a weapons platform that barely works, but if a single mother uses food stamps to buy cake ingredients and then sells a few pieces of cake that’s a travesty.
Millions of Americans, not just white, but plenty of Hispanics, Blacks and Asians too, voted to take away their own medical insurance.
Because they know that they’re just temporarily embarrassed millionaires. Not the type of people who need handouts.
"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.
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.
Now I'm not advocating for reckless spending, you can run services with reason while staying within a spending envelope, but there is a striking difference between entities that are specifically aligned for profit and those who aren't, and this is very noticeable in the health sector, in America, were wealth directly correlates with health.
It boggles my mind when I still occasionally hear people speaking out against all forms of single payer healthcare in the US saying they don't want to have to wait weeks/months to see a doctor like they do in Canada/UK/wherever.
If I give them the benefit of the doubt of not being paid lobbyists for the medical insurance industry, I can only surmise these people haven't been to a non-emergency doctor since prior to 2020.
Because even here in the US if you aren't fabulously wealthy with concierge medical you'll be waiting weeks/months to see a 'doctor'. And you'll almost certainly never actually see a doctor, you're going to see an overworked NP (no shade on NPs here, most of whom are great, just establishing how our medical system actually works in 2026).
But it's simply not true. my mom broke her back last year and before we realized that her back was broken, we saw an urgent care doctor, same day, within 30mins (I don't recall the exact timescale now, but it was pretty much instant). Who promptly gave my mom an Rx and told us to go to the ER. Personally, urgent care appointments have always been available within 2hrs, and even stuff like an xray (usually in a centralized office, so some travel required) is possible same day. This isn't special treatment.
If someone is waiting long for care, it isn't a problem with the system - and the alternative you speak of isn't going to solve the "I'm not a medical doctor" problem either, which is the main objection to the long wait-times. Minor hypochondriac-ness notwithstanding - nothing will be able to solve that completely - money is the back-pressure mechanism to avoid waste of limited resources. Whether anybody likes it or not, doctors/xray-machines/etc are not infinite (for now heh).
For-profit health-care insurance companies should burn in hell, though.
My father had his heart in afib for over 3 months straight as US hospitals and doctors jerked him around and set appointments weeks out before they finally removed his thyroid, despite a family history of thyroid problems and having multiple previous hospital trips for suspected heart attacks, which by itself should give the obvious conclusion that his thyroid needed to be removed.
Being in afib just for a few days can cause permanent heart damage, heart attack, and death. And even once they decided it should be done, it was another 2.5 weeks before they scheduled the surgery. I don't see how anyone can think the US medical system is any good for anybody but the obscenely wealthy.
No doctor in existence would consider that an acceptable scenario, but the profit driven investors seemingly had no problem with him dieing when they had more profitable patients to serve first.
Both systems triage. The wait for non urgent needs in the US system is still weeks to months
Ok.
But in the reply you are responding to I specifically carved out an exception for emergency situations:
> I can only surmise these people haven't been to a non-emergency doctor since prior to 2020.
Your mom's situation was certainly an emergency.
I'm glad she was seen promptly, but her situation is very different than someone who needs to see a specialist for something that is not immediately life threatening (even if waiting could have serious long term health consequences).
Urgent care is a grift to replace a relationship with a doctor or practice with a lower paid, lower skilled NP. It’s more a sales funnel that anything.
What if I don't care about this whatsoever?
The problem is there is a huge bathtub curve in insurance quality between employers and the public market. It’s a rude awakening when you can’t afford COBRA rates and have to fall back to a “bronze plan” or whatever is available on the exchanges.
You said FAANG, so perhaps you're in California, a state that has laws regulating health insurance to an extent that make it unique in the USA?
That is definitely a confounding factor, although I’m curious how much of that is the urban vs rural split in other states. (The construction company was not in California but oil boom-town adjacent in Texas)
Part of ACA was the creation of regional health cartels. If you’re in a region with shitty networks, care may be hard to get. Where I live there’s a teaching hospital with a doctor focused medical network and a big Catholic hospital chain.
In my scenario, There is a good market for cardiac, OB, and some other specialties in each network. The rest is a monopoly— the catholic network doesn’t staff neuro for example, they just have consultants.
Conversely, people consistently put forth single-payer as a panacea without considering what other differences exist between the systems.
For example, in the US a medical residency is required by law but the number of residency slots is constrained because the AMA wants to reduce supply/competition. Change who pays the premiums and that's still just as much of a problem, and it might even make it worse to give the lobbyists an even deeper pocket to siphon money from.
Another significant source of costs in the US system is that doctors can prescribe much more expensive patented drugs or devices and no part of the system is given the incentive to say no to something which is only slightly or negligibly better but dramatically more expensive. Likewise, many of these patents are obvious (e.g. extended release version of existing drug or combination of two common existing drugs) and shouldn't be granted, but nevertheless are. But if those patents are issued and the system is required to pay for a drug when a doctor prescribes it, the seller has a monopoly for the patent term and can charge the monopoly price. The normal way to solve that is for "customers" to be more exposed to cost differences between treatment options, so that things that are only marginally better can only charge marginally higher prices, which is the opposite of how single-payer works.
"Single payer" is essentially replacing insurance companies with the government, but that doesn't solve any of the problems that exist in the parts of the system that aren't the insurance companies.
For example, why do we have insurance companies "negotiating" with providers and having "in-network" nonsense instead of requiring universal price transparency? Instead of the insurance company setting the price, have them set how much they cover, e.g. they pay 90% of the second lowest price that service is available for within 100 miles of the patient. Then the patient chooses where to go and pays whatever the insurance doesn't cover. Meanwhile the providers are all required to publish transparent pricing so there is a public database of everyone who can perform a service and how much they charge.
Then a patient receiving non-emergency care (which is the large majority of medical expenses) can decide whether they want to travel 50 minutes to get the lowest price, or pay a little more of their own money because another provider is closer or provides optional amenities. Which in turn makes the providers actually compete with each other, which is the thing single-payer doesn't get you.
Really?
I live in the US, and this is false, with Zocdoc I can see even specialists within 24-72 hours. All I have is my wife's United plan, nothing fancy,
The main issue I've had is finding a gp in Portland Oregon. I want a male who is accepting new patients which is seemingly impossible to find.
If I need to be referred to a specialist though, I could be waiting months just for the initial consultation, and then months again before anything happens. Also, there just aren't specialists in my area for some things. Been trying to get a consult about dissociative disorder for years now.
My GP is great though, he constantly tells me about exciting new papers he's been reading and he loves to share science and research level stuff. It's clear that he loves his job, it makes me super happy.
(He's an MD, not NP, and he takes Medicaid)
We however don't want unnatural monopolies that have enough capital to swat away any competition, nor do we want natural monopolies taken over by rent-seekers.
Buy a failing business and leverage debt on it until you can’t, spend the money on yourself restructuring the business.
Buy a working business and gut it for multiple.
Buy failing businesses to offset tax burden.
This a meta level game, they don’t care about the outcome as long as it produces profit.
Product quality goes down the drain? That product is retirement homes, healthcare, food, utility, schools, it doesn’t matter. There is a million levels of separation and paperwork and a corp structure to prevent shit swimming up the stream.
Net result, if you live in America look around you, go to an auto service center, or a clinic. It’s been gutted for profit one way or another.
They often still buy those things, e.g. when there is a failing company in a competitive market that could do better with new management, but then no one complains about it because they're not making the product worse (and can't because there is actual competition).
The biggest moat is capital.
PE is buying up things like medical practices, law firms, vets, etc, where typically there would be an upwards path for one generation to hire new blood to cover their markets and then sell partnership stakes to them when they want to retire. But why should an owner of a practice sell to their junior staff when PE is there offering 2, 3, 5x as much?
Consolidation of these kinds of businesses at the hands of PE is endemic of systemic lack of capital acquisition of a generation of people, held down by debt and concerns about practical shit like healthcare.
PE is just a symptom of larger macro economic trends, namely the depletion of the next generation from free cash they could use to become business owners.
The better question is, why does a medical practice have a moat? What exactly is the PE firm buying? When the senior doctor retires, what stops the junior one(s) from renting their own offices and taking their patients with them?
The answer is presumably something like, non-compete agreements, or vendor lock-in from EMR systems, or some kind of insurance or regulatory bureaucracy. So then we need to identify what it actually is and do away with it so the next generation's juniors don't have to outbid Wall St to acquire it.
There is no shortage of investment looking for great returns. A market with huge demand not being met adequately is a dream to investors. Even more when you know the competition must continue to fuck their customers because they paid above market rates for the purchase and the business is saddled with debt obligations it must meet (Leveraged buyouts do that).
What could stop new competition from beating them out?
It's not capital.
Who the hell is going to take the risk on and for what? Take x billon dollars to build from scratch or near guaranteed profit to buy 50 practices and shittify them for near guaranteed profit.
Show me an example of trend reversal please of this happening in any sector. These are essentials and basics and they are captured, this isn’t a froyo start up that has a 3 year cycle.
It only works by having more capital to begin with.
Otherwise you wouldn't see consolidation where it shouldn't exist.
The PE firm creates market demand for the goods/services that the purchased company used to provide at a better value to the customer.
So yes, the 'creation' is a demand which is sort of a destruction of the value that the customers previously had. In a fair market, this demand can be met. But a PE buys strategically such that this demand is not possible to satisfy because the company they purchased is entrenched in some way (regulation/monopoly).
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).
To put humans through this kind of misaligned system is the stuff of nightmares.
And also the natural market equilibrium, apparently.
The predatory businesses are able to do the extraction only because of the practical monopoly they have in a neighborhood.
I believe the ops can be open sourced and replicated franchise style. And vets, who originally get into the career because they love animals will be drawn to it, and they have bills to pay, but that can be taken care of with a reasonable payment structure.
I hope someone else does this so I don't have to. But I think I have to at some point. I'd also love to hear if this is a dumb idea.
I think the only way to do it is to have your neighborhood actively being okay with seeking local services something that a lot of neighborhood groups I frequent seem to be a big fan of (farmer's markets are an indication of this - if there's strong and regular FMs being hosted, there's people willing to burn a little extra disposable income for better, more reliable products)
But on the human side many health systems are non-profit, and they generally aren't any cheaper or better quality than their for-profit competition. The real problem is local market power and lack of anti-trust enforcement.
We were flabbergasted. Asked the tech what was optional or what was required as part of our visit and he said, oh, just the top line item for the exam. $95.
It has to be illegal to do that. I feel like next time I go in there they are going to give me the ol' Clark Stanley runaround.
This insanity is creating a crisis amount of pets being abandoned, and then euthanized by the animal services. People can’t afford to have pets anymore.
Imagine you're drowning in student debt and worrying about keeping your business afloat, when someone offers you $5M, and says you'll still get to work with animals, which you love, while they take care of the financial and business side, which you didn't enjoy. It's a no brainer for most people.
Two things, I think, might make the decision for them, in spite of that:
- The money is actually more than their business could be projected to make alone. This is because the PE firm isn't just buying the single practice but every practice in the area to kill competition. Get that captive market and you can charge more.
- The personal ownership freedom can be already lost on these independent people if they feel they are already tied down too much. I know this is especially the case in small medical offices where insurance and regulation can over-rule them. Feeling like you don't have control in this way can cause a lot of depression (tangent but look up how we condition mice in order to test treatments of antidepressants on them). At that point, the monied exit starts looking like a better option.
Or take $5m and get no more upside and 70% less work. The "work" here is dealing with regulations, insurance companies, administration, payments, and accounting, not actually looking after dogs
the PE model is often to provide a competent regtech/administration core and then plug heaps of regulated businesses into it and centralise all the admin
imagine opening a vet in SF in 1950 in a cheap shoplot and people just paid you with hard cash or cheques in person, you wrote receipts with a biro, and filed taxes once or twice a year on a few sheets of paper... compared to now
Even if you were willing to be as ruthless as a PE firm, raising your prices and sacking half your staff, and even if you were somehow an expert in financial engineering and business optimization, you still won't make the business as profitable as they can.
* There’s probably more cost in medical supply, equipment, and certification than you’d expect. There’s standards for security of the medications.
* Most veterinary clinics have staff. That’s payroll expenses.
* Any new business will need marketing. You’ll probably want a large sign/billboard, a decent website, and social media.
* Just leasing office space and furnishing it is surprisingly expensive.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-27/nsw-government-joes-l...
Approximately 45% of GPs in Australia work in practices owned by private companies
https://www.monash.edu/business/che/impact-and-engagement/re...
when people talk about how healthcare needs to be better and better and more and more, I say "tell me under your plan what diseases/injuries to what extant will not be treated: who do you say "no" to? Every country could spend every collective nickel they have, and some people still would not live to see the next morning, but in a way that's ok because there probably wouldn't be any breakfast either, that money was spent on healthcare.
What exactly are you calling for? I thought millenial and genz home ownership was the problem we need to fix. Are we going to sacrifice hipster housing for healthcare? Since most healthcare today is probably needed by boomers, think carefully about your answer.
Underresourcing the hospital was a deliberate decision by Brookfield to push for a government bail-out. Anyone who made money off this should be in jail.
Absolutely no idea what the rest of your comment is about. Our hospitals should have the resources to treat a sick child. Some might say that's the entire point of society.
They have no concept of how much cheaper medical care can be. They don't realise there is enough for everyone. They are blind to the fact that many other countries care for all of their people for a fraction of the price. The people on this forum live in a strange parallel reality where there is only enough to go around, even though that hasn't been true for a very long time.
So when people ask why they don't provide for the poor or fix their broken healthcare system by introducing single-payer healthcare, they'll speak to you like you're an idiot or a child. "Who is going to pay for that?", they ask, while paying an order of magnitude more for a GP visit than any other citizen of any other nation does. To them, you just have a poor understanding of economics.
I already hear the downsides frequently from someone whose work is directly affected.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
I don't think that follows necessarily, especially not categorically.
You're gonna need to steelman that again, because in and of itself that is also not something I see as desirable.
If you can't allow property rights then there is no way to steelman people exercising property rights.
Obviously, yes, people are - and should be - constrained in what they can do with their property. Even the most capitalist systems on earth place restrictions on property. I didn't think it was necessary to caveat that control of private property is not absolute or without consequences. I'm not aware of any capitalist systems that do not put greater protections on people that control large amounts of property (see monopoly, environmental, antitrust, public securities law, etc. Most of those are basically irrelevant to people who don't own large amounts of property).
The point is that for property to mean anything at all, an owner must be allowed to direct the use of that property. What's the point of owning a house if I can't make any decisions about what to do with it. I don't really own a house if I can't decide that I want to live in it, or to sell it.
Aside from that, once you admit that there can be restrictions on property rights, it's unclear how property rights in and of themselves is a steelman of private equity. Why not just say that "you can't sell to private equity" is one of the restrictions? Or, perhaps more subtly, why not say that a private equity company of a certain size is not allowed to buy any additional company, independent of what rights that company's owner has to sell?
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.
Ultimately, I think the issue is when people making decisions are able to treat the impact as an abstraction.
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.
One is ambitious, the other is a nepo baby.
In many cases that's a good thing, depending on what we mean by efficient. Lots of people run businesses in ways that make less money than they could, and often that's good.
> 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.
Doesn't the evidence suggest it is indeed often worse?
My sweet summer child...
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.
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.
PE isn’t that.
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".
Sell the assets maybe, potentially to somebody who wants to use them to run the same kind of business in the same kind of location with the same employees.
It's hostile to the consumer to call it the same business. A name change gives them the opportunity to decide for themselves whether the new owner is worth supporting. It's similarly hostile to the employees to assume that their loyalties can be bought and sold. Let the new owner of the assets re-hire them for the same position in the same location if he wants to, but lets not have them be for sale.
Maybe I'm making too big of a deal out of semantics, but every time somebody buys me it makes me angry.
Definitely see how some would prefer the job reconsidered, though. There's no system that makes everyone happy, including to never sell a business.
These things are good to think about; appreciate it.
> A PE interested and invested for growth is always the best outcome.
This is what we do. One portfolio company has a product on old tech. We bring in a product team, a CTO, internal tech teams. Help shape a roadmap to tackle the most egregious tech and product debt so teams can move faster. Fix non-existent or outdated pricing strategy that has not evolved with the industry. Fix, grow, or evolve GTM to reach new customers. Help bring fresh leadership resources in when needed.
Industry is typically "boring" and systems are valuable, but aging. We invest, modernize, and try to grow new rev streams, new customers. Portfolio is SaaS focused (can't speak for those that invest in real estate and healthcare).
The employees of the PE also co-invest so everyone is aligned to help the portfolio companies grow and exit. This is a multiyear process.
>> The employees of the PE also co-invest
Is this voluntary, or mandatory?
I ask because I've seen clauses along the lines of "75% of bonuses are paid in shares, not available for sale for 5 years."
Using bonus money to buy shares props up the share price, but delays the employee actually seeing the bonus for 5 years. Seems pretty win-lose to me, and kinda puts me off.
Is this a standard practice you mean by co-invest?
(As an aside, I'm not a fan of buying shares where I work, that's not a good portfolio-diversification model. If the business goes under it's not good to lose both your job, and investments, on the same day.)
There is carry and co-invest. Carry is a grant (like options). Co-invest is additional funds that you commit for capital calls when the fund invests. My comp is base + cash bonus (1.#x base) + carry (~2/3 of my base every year for 10 years).
Yes, locked away until some distribution event. Bonus is cash (YMMV), but if you don't already have the capital for a capital call, you're right that your bonus effectively ends up in the fund to meet capital call requirements at some point.
Co-invest is "strongly recommended at the amount specified". Legally, they cannot compel you to, but basically the way it is worded...
Should you co-invest? Look at CalPers for realistic rate of returns. Look at the PE portfolio; do you think it holds? Ask them to walk you through a case study of their timeline with a successful portfolio co. CalPers is not playing around. Some funds will 3x, 4x over the lifetime (historical performance not indicative of future perf). You pay capital gains tax on that earning.
Best case: you already have the cash to cover the co-invest capital calls. Worst case: you are borrowing money or using your bonus to plow more into the portfolio.
On side note, its rare to see anyone fixing the old tech, its hard to fix, needs a different kind of talent thats hard to hire for the PE money. The folks who can understand some one else's decade old code and run their imagination through all the possible assumptions or trade off that might have been made in code/system are rare to find.
Finding new customers, finding more things to sell, finding synergies with other items in your portfolio, increasing the price for existing products are more realistic.
Sorry, naming a portfolio company would reveal the PE.
My PE is SaaS heavy portfolio. Pricing strategy, GTM, product roadmap; companies have rev, good moat, good customer base. But clear opportunity to grow rev.
Many companies are held by original founders. Leadership teams in eng and product have been the same for a decade+; lacking exposure to how the industry is shifting. AI, for example, has slow adoption in some cases.
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.
In your model, the only possible business owners would be those with major capital resources to begin with, encouraging the spread of existing businesses into a sprawl: Walmart is now your doctor, pharmacist, and pharma manufacturer. Nobody would start a small business because they'd have to carry all liability, any new ideas are limited to spread at a glacially slow pace, because companies can't be aquired or acqui-hired, but can instead only scale on their own revenues.
I'm currently part of a "small" business/factory (around 50 employees). The owner is nearing retirement. Are all 50 of us gonna hit the streets tomorrow? Should our customers, many longstanding over 20 years get their contracts terminated? Do they get any warning? Can they easily switch to other suppliers? Is our offering somewhat unique?
Frankly, I think the thought-experiment is very incomplete if you can't see major downsides.
In this thought experiment, the result would be very similar to what happened, except with less wealth concentration, and with fewer Boeing-McDonnell Douglas mergers that ruin good companies in pursuit of short term profits (because short term profits are harder to realize by design).
Lost jobs are also a lot less of a problem in countries with functioning safety net.
Or you get a loan. Or you get an investor on board. How is that different from the current situation?
> encouraging the spread of existing businesses into a sprawl: Walmart is now your doctor, pharmacist, and pharma manufacturer.
It's happening anyway. My last vaccination was done 100% at Walmart.
> Nobody would start a small business because they'd have to carry all liability
How is that different from the current situation?
> any new ideas are limited to spread at a glacially slow pace, because companies can't be aquired or acqui-hired
Acquisitions are a relatively recent inventions, acqui-hires even more so. People have been doing massive inventions at rapid pace for like 200 years before being bought out by FAANG was a viable business strategy.
> but can instead only scale on their own revenues.
And loans. Don't forget loans.
Disallow eyeglasses. Abolish money.
Any other good ideas?
Sure, you are allowed to start a new business. But where would you get money? You can't sell your dung transport business, and you don't have enough money of your own to just start a new business from scratch.
I am all for serious discussion about shortcomings of my idea. But this isn't it.
You basically want to reinvent the feudalism with its nobility and peasants.
Say "hello" to dynastic marriages, noble lineages, etc. The _best_ case is the system of medieval guilds.
(never mind that "selling assets" is just a workaround for "selling business")
PE bought two of them, combined them into one, and now they, at about the same cost, do what they say they are going to do, answer the phone, hire competent people, and do a good job.
Likewise, PE has bought up most of the local plumbing and HVAC, and that's been a bit of a bummer, and gotten more expensive, but if you need someone right now, they are there (and answer the phone, etc), as opposed to the local concern who may be on vacation and can get back to you in 2 weeks.
There are some really good local small businesses/trades people, but like the 1950s, in a lot of aspects they are overly romanticized.
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.
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?
An acquaintance doctor in vet med was pitched 10% ownership in a practice buyout; PE would do business management. The doctor countered with the PE company getting 10%, since they won't be doing any medicine. The PE company declined.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-06/private-e...
Should they be outlawed from selling to certain classes of investor? Which?
Should they be outlawed from selling to certain classes of investor? Which?
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.
Why stop at healthcare? Why not other essentials of life, like food or toilet paper?
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.
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?
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.
I already addressed cyclospora in another comment, but how is consolidation or tyson beef supposed to be blamed for the shortage? Media reports blamed the shortage on droughts and/or screw worms, hardly a tyson issue. Not to mention tyson hasn't exactly been raking it in during all this shortage:
>Yet despite record beef prices, the “Big Processors”, as Mr Trump calls them, are not thriving. Shares in Tyson, the largest, have tumbled by 40% since 2021—and by 7% since it cut its earnings forecast on September 3rd. It now expects its beef business, which brings in 40% of revenue, to lose as much as $775m this year. Trouble in the division has dragged the company’s overall operating margin down from 8.5% in 2021 to 2.6%. JBS, which is Brazilian, has said its North American business lost $427m in the first half of 2026.
https://www.economist.com/business/2026/09/10/beef-has-never...
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.
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.
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)
If we simply envision a nation without diarrhea have we not eradicated it in our hearts, where it matters mos
You have fewer single points of failure, but more opportunities for failure and a tougher time addressing it via inspection, and less capital available to implement compliance.
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.
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?
Not-for-profit entities can still pay market rate wages to employees and owners.
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?
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
>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?
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.
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?
An older relative had a very successful small conglomerate of businesses. One of them manufactured something costing close to $100 that Wal-Mart was interested in selling in its stores. After extensive negotiations, my relative told the Wal-Mart VP no because Wal-Mart was pressuring them to use cheaper parts that would make the product wear out more quickly. Wal-Mart didn't care because they'd be able to make the sales and then consumers would come back to buy again sooner, but my relative felt that was dishonorable. The VP said it was the first time a potential supplier ever walked away from him. They are notorious for their abuse of suppliers, and the ethical concerns are often very palpable. You might suggest this is simply market forces playing out, but we decided long ago that monopoly power often leads to a market we don't want to see in this country.
We the people get to decide what kind of society we want to live in. Their monopoly power means that in so many of the rural areas where they are, they might be one of the few viable employers. When people are poor, it's not so easy to just tell them to relocate to another geographical area, so it's easier for the entities benefiting from that to maintain the status quo at the expense of others. If we decide that for Wal-Mart to stay in business in the USA they need to pay employees more, with health insurance, then so be it. If they can't, then they can just go out of business and be replaced by a company that is able to navigate that balance better, offering pretty low prices while paying a bit more in wages.
VC is bad because of the concentration of power, same reason Walmart is.
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.
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?
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?
67% of Americans support raising the federal minimum wage to $15/hour. Why hasn’t it happened yet if it’s so popular?
https://news.gallup.com/poll/652523/americans-endorse-early-...
Why hasn’t it happened yet at the Federal level if it’s so popular?
Must be the corporations!
If you think about this a bit, I'll bet you can spot the flaw in your own argument.
They're probably thinking the same thing as those darn busybodies who outlawed child labor.
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.
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".
In the context of this article -- we may not need a new ban specific to preventing private equity from owning medical practices. We could simply enforce existing laws around e.g. market consolidation, consumer harm, etc.
Adding a new law to also be ignored seems silly.
Yes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's a steelman argument to be clear I'm not entirely convinced by it.
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.
> 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.
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?
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.
Management often makes terribly unprofitable decisions and often work to protect their slices of the pie rather than the org.
Tech companies are saved by their margins, their aura, and low interest rates.
Better examples might be grocery stores or other low margin businesses that require some fairly ruthless prioritization (at least that is what I’m to understand)
To your care / profitability argument: that is good news! However, I do believe that concern for profitability will always outweigh a care quality argument so there is a misalignment of incentives in that case. I would look to insurers to demonstrate this, generally, but can imagine a PE-owned hospital system might attempt similar measures.
Ideal outcome is a great manager that also cares and ends up paying doctors more and providing excellent care while driving down costs using better processes and negotiating with suppliers. But, uh… not sure how often the benevolent PE firm actually shows up historically.
Value extraction is a short term play. It’s usable by most companies in a pinch, but normally only happens before their death or slow decay into zombie-dom. At least, that’s what my anecdata tells me.
It survived, then thrived, by making its products so appealing that customers would buy them anyway.
So, effectively, both.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You wouldn't have any business if all, or many, of your patients die.
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.
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?
There is also the effect where it doesn't matter if are or are not doing better by the numbers, it question is do they feel they are doing better. People act on how they feel, not on how they are.
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.
Gift link: https://www.economist.com/podcasts/2026/02/19/a-love-letter-...
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.
What alternative are you imagining?
If you are putting the debt on a shell company’s books, you aren’t putting debt on the buying companies books.
Are you proposing that only an established company can buy another business with profits from their operations or something?
If I start a company with a loan and want to buy 3 HVAC companies in my area, is that allowed under your rule?
then they extract as much cash as possible while the debt ballons. so called ‘extracting brand value’.
the investors usually do quite well
This is a non-sequitur. The existence of private equity has an effect on how companies are run, not the other way around. Many well-run companies are targeted by PE exactly because they're well-run and have carved out a sizable captive audience for themselves. And when PE takes over, said company usually ceases to be well-run on all metrics except one.
PE exists because of the non-linear relationship between money accumulation and power. This effect means that it is more beneficial for any company to hoard capital as much as it can rather than "waste" it on the wider economy; after accumulating enough capital, the company can pivot away from whatever market it was in before and focus solely on asset management. PE mostly results from too low taxation on inert wealth compounded by zero-interest rate monetary policies.
It's a false choice. The healthcare system has long dealt with and deal with that situation without private equity.
Probably the biggest problem with medical is that it's incredibly regulated for the industry's benefit.
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.
a financially inefficient business may be a business that employs more people than it absolutely needs, a business that treats customers/vendors more generously than it absolutely needs to, or even a business that exists as a going concern that would be more financially efficient if sold off for parts or went into bankruptcy.
i personally don't believe financial efficiency should be the guiding principle for everything or really anything, and I believe as a society we should account more for non-financial efficiencies (like treating human beings generously and kindly), and I think it's fine for an inefficient business to continue existing if that means more people have jobs for longer or customers/vendors are treated more generously. fundamentally, i think this line of thinking is dehumanizing, as it views the world (humans, nature, information, knowledge etc.) as resources/materials and not much else.
that all being said, i at least understand the principles and the materialist idea that everything can be viewed as material/resource and why people pursue them (esp because pursuing them effectively can make you fabulously wealthy).
i often say when talking about this stuff with friends: if you're willing/able to see everything (including/especially people) as resource/material, you're well positioned to obtain a lot of material resources/material. whether that's a good thing for you or the rest of the world is another question (and my view is that it's straight up bad).
People who are vehemently against PE generally do not have any idea of how the system works
One foreseeable consequence of this bill is that it reduces the ultimate value of starting and building your own practice, leading to more consolidation among existing large operators. As this is foreseeable, I also imagine that it's an unstated goal.
I ask because, no one else would believe that private equity is anything other than a middle man to the exact outcome you are describing, with the detour of cutting jobs and benefits from the remaining employees while simultaneously trying to buy the company for we cheaply as possible from the owner, and selling it at as a price as possible. PE steals value from both ends.
Nice summary of the legal landscape here:
https://www.dlapiper.com/en/insights/publications/2026/07/co...