Hacker News Reader

Comment by Kluny | Hacker News Reader

I've often heard conspiracy theorists say that if dentists ever learned of a way to cure cavities more cheaply and without drilling, they'd suppress the information as it would endanger their business. I think this is insane, but can anyone offer a sound economic argument for why dentists would embrace the new technique instead of cartelling up to suppress it?

View on HN

Because capitalism. Dentists are not a cabal but a loosely affiliated set of individuals. As soon as one local dentist start filling teeth pain-free with great long-lasting results, all the other dentists had better adapt or they will go out of business.

That's not capitalism, that's market economics. Often (arguably universally at this point in history, but watch this space) found together but not at all the same.

Your point stands, nevertheless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy

First section.....Capitalism. Capitalism is certainly a type of market economy.

Squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

"In state capitalist systems, markets are relied upon the least, with the state relying heavily on either indirect economic planning and/or state-owned enterprises to accumulate capital."

Your own link doesn't support what you're saying.

State Capitalism may be an actual thing. But no one means it when they say "capitalism".

"State capitalism is usually described as an economic system in which commercial (i.e. for-profit) economic activity is undertaken by the state, where the means of production are organized and managed as state-owned business enterprises"

I find this response to be curious. Why not simply assume that the other person up there does include State Capitalism under the umbrella of "capitalism" when they say that capitalism and free markets don't always go together, rather than assume that they intend a definition of "capitalism" that automatically excludes the very thing they were saying?

Because the person I was responding to was saying that capitalism didn't include a group of "loosely affiliated" people competing for business. It obviously does.

State Capitalism would be if the government started a dentist company and, in this case, didn't offer new services in order to keep the profits artificially high.

It's not even remotely obvious that capitalism must include any competition. You might try reading the Wikipedia entry you linked.

Maybe to a pedant. But in the common usage of the term it is interchangeable with a free market, where competition is always allowed.

Isn't it pedantry when a person links to Wikipedia and insists on using the meanings therein?

Yeah, because capitalism means socialism, right? That's what state capitalism is, so let's just use the same word for both, then everyone will be on the same page and all the confusion resolved.

I find it very confusing that you link to a Wikipedia article, pull a statement from it, then spend all of your replies arguing against what that article says.

It'd be impossible for a dentist to go rogue if the main lobbying group for the dentists wasn't allowing any new treatments to get government approval.

Also, I'd argue that capitalism is what causes the entrenchment of industries that get addicted to their profits and don't care about the customers.

I'd argue that capitalism is what causes the entrenchment of industries that get addicted to their profits and don't care about the customers.

No, this is human nature. People with power and wealth act to protect it. This is true whether they get their power and wealth because they are high-ranking politicans, party officials or bureaucrats, or whether they earned it in the private sector.

Wouldn't the government approval issue be more of a socialist factor? Would a socialist government, who's dental representatives want to protect their slice of the public pie be more or less powerful than a capitalist leaning government who wants to limit interference in the market? For instance, is the teachers union more or less powerful than the dental lobbyists?

>Wouldn't the government approval issue be more of a socialist factor?

One uses money to manipulate the people in charge of socialist government programs. I'd bet that the dental lobbyists are stronger in their niche than the teachers union is because there's less public knowledge and interest there.

It'd be possible for public to mount enough pressure on government to allow for that.

Given a few assumptions, of course - enough information, attentive enough government, enough energy in the society etc.

Because "cartelling up" is much, much harder and more rare than people think. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel#Long-term_unsustainabil...

Why don't dentists recommend drinking more soda and eating more candy?

I have a dentist friend that says he should install a soda machine, and if you have a cavity free checkup, you get coupons for free refills of soda... "And have a free piece of sticky candy!"

I don't know, but if you find some, let me know so I can give them my money.

They aren't outwardly evil. Put on a happy face and turn the screws where the customer can't see or control. Like all capitalist companies that want to maximize profit.

Because people don't need any encouraging to do those things. From a dentists point of view there's no scarcity of poor dental decisions, so they don't need to artificially try to create them.

For the same reason a real estate agent does not try to sell you the first house they show you: their motives would be way too obviously transparent if they did that and people would see through it.

I don't understand the downvotes. I'm not suggesting that dentists actually want to harm peoples' teeth. I'm simply pointing out that dentists recommending sugar and soda is too obviously nonsensical a position for anyone to actually take, regardless of their true position.

My dad, grandfather, and sister-in-law are all dentists. This was something we'd chat about every now and then, and the answer inevitably came down to "whatever is better for patients is good for me".

Sounds a bit like a platitude, but there are so many different treatments and procedures modern dentists do that I think it the profession would generally be fine for quite some time. In a large sense, there'd probably be a transition towards more emphasis on repair and fixes of traumatic injury rather than preventative procedures, but it would likely take awhile before things dramatically change for the profession.

Because this fixes a cavity; it doesn't prevent it. Even with treatments like this, we'll still be going to the dentist.

And further, I'll go to a dentist that offers this treatment before I'll go to one that doesn't.

I wonder if quick checkups are any less profitable per unit time than doing fillings. Not much in the way of materials required, and you can get a good throughput, with each visit likely to be of predictable duration.

(My teeth are in good shape, and my average dentist visit takes all of 15 minutes: check teeth for basic soundness, scrape off tartar, remove tea stains from upper incisors. Still costs me £55.)

There is also orthodontic work.

"Quick Checkups" are less profitable. However, Scaling and root planing (periodontal treatment) is super profitable which is just a more time intensive version of a checkup. I do know of some dentists that tell their hygienists to not do a good job so they can get the periodontal treatment and charge $400 a quarter instead of $150 every 6 months.

Source: Wife was a hygienist before she burned out from contortionist body pain and having to make commission.

> Source: Wife was a hygienist before she burned out from contortionist body pain and having to make commission.

Note to self: find out what dentists make their hygienists work on commission and don't go there.

Since you used pounds I'm assuming UK, NHS dentists charge £53 for extractions/most work, a check up is less than £20 and mine always include a cleaning/scaling if required.

Unless you are strictly private in which case that sounds more sane.

In the U.S., checkups are primarily done by the (less-expensive) dental assistant doing the X-rays, the (moderately expensive) hygienist doing the cleaning, followed by a quick inspection of mouth and X-rays by the (expensive) dentist. I imagine that the predictability and minimal time use of the dentist would allow it to be quite profitable.

However, as teeth become drastically less susceptible to disease, people will feel much less need to have regular dentist visits...

The researchers say the device can also whiten teeth. So the dentists will be fine.

That kind of already happened, though it's only suppressed in the sense that no dentist ever hinted to me that nutrition might matter beyond avoiding sugar: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/12/dr-mellanbys-t...

Because patients will flock to the dentists who do embrace it, and others may even sue the ones who don't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com