> who is even "the user" here?
The doctors and their patients. If it's as bad as it sounds, it actively degrades the ability of doctors to provide care, so it quite literally hurts actual people.
And he was well aware that I'm a guy whose mental illness can mostly be traced to escaping into screens since the first Family Cathode Ray of 1974 and Clarke Monolith of 1968
A crucial part of this approach is to let your doctor know exactly why you're leaving. If they're losing business over it, they'll look for alternatives. And if the EHR company loses money, they'll look to make changes, too.
What recourse does an individual have if they live in a rural area with 1 or 3 doctors that all use the same hostile software?
Should they suffer because they don't have money or the ability to go else where?
Those that do should organize to make their displeasure known. Senior decision makers are probably incompetent boobs rather than compete assholes.
If they live somewhere with 1 doc they should vote with their feet by leaving before the town finishes dying around them.
It's not some coincidence that just about every company in every sector is screwing over more and more people. This is all extremely calculated. We've decided that making the most money is all that matters and we're seeing the inevitable results of that choice everywhere around us. If shareholders got richer by providing people with quality healthcare and well designed websites and the freedom to use or not use mobile technology we'd already have those things. No one cares how shitty they make our lives or even how many of us they kill as long as they keep the ability to stuff more money into their pockets this quarter than they did last quarter. The people doing this shit to us aren't incompetent. What we want from them isn't what they're optimizing for. Maybe you haven't noticed the massive amount of consolidation in every industry going on, but consider that voting with your wallet gets harder over time. Consider how many companies you're personally giving your money to right now while wishing you had an alternative that better met your needs. Voting with your wallet is not a real option. The fattest wallet will always win.
Is this what you're seriously arguing? That people should be forced to have a worse quality life, die earlier; all because they committed the crime of not living in a metropolis?
Do you not see how people read this as completely heartless and devoid of empathy towards their fellow man?
The idea that my neighbors and I are gunna go picket the only person within 20 miles that can write a prescription is ludicrous.
Literally already the case and more so care isn't cheaper unlike land so your lesser dollars buys lesser care and no realistic access to specialists
And thus it's questionable whenever voting with wallet would work. It works in healthy, free and competitive markets with rational actors, and we probably aren't looking at one.