@HeathVeuleman The risk isn’t that tomorrow looks different from yesterday.
The risk is that our institutions adapt in ways that preserve the logic responsible for their decline.
Every adaptation postpones the reckoning.
Every postponed reckoning makes correction more difficult.
— The HC
Institutional trust depends not only on accurate data, but on confidence that the architecture of measurement has not predetermined what can and cannot be seen.
— The Hospital Cartel
Every institution depends on classification.
The categories it creates determine what becomes visible, what is measured, and what is believed.
That is why the design of categories deserves as much scrutiny as the data.
Imagine if the Doctor said if you get ill, have an adverse reaction, or die for 2 weeks after the experimental injection they’re about to administer that it doesn’t count.
The statistical trick which shifted negative signals from mRNA injected individuals into the unvaccinated population is now a peer-reviewed Italian study by Alessandria et al.
Prof. Angus Dalgleish told Sen. Ron Johnson: “When it comes to side effects... they said ‘we don’t have side effects for the vaccine until at least 14 days, because that’s how long it takes an antibody to come... people whodropped down dead after 1 or 2 days [were recorded as] unvaccinated.”
If a classification system systematically obscures meaningful events, the resulting conclusions reflect the system’s definitions rather than the underlying reality.
CEOs aren’t irrational.
They’re operating within an architecture that distributes information, responsibility, and incentives across enough intermediaries that no single participant ever has to understand the whole.
Opacity isn’t just a lack of transparency.
CEOs turn to their Head of HR. HR is understaffed. They are being asked to take care of all their employees and families and all the issues associated with keeping them as healthy and sane and productive give as possible.
It’s an impossible job.
When I talk to that Head of HR, they say they have to trust the big insurance carriers who are their ASO and PBM. They have no choice but to
On one hand their members are terrified to change their insurance carriers for fear of losing their doctor, or other continuity issues
The vertically integrated conglomerates that own the ASO, PBM, ClearingHouse and so many more companies that have contracts with the employer , know they are afraid to change , so they take advantage
Even when that employer uses a consultant or broker , there is probably a 50pct or greater chance the broker/consultant doesn’t want to go through the work of changing, they would rather collect their fees and not change.
There are even reporting requirements (Form 5500) to disclose these costs, but the ceo has no clue about them.
All this leads to lack of change. Even when every penny they save goes right to the bottom line and increases their stock price
What I told a ceo today ? Take a off of all of your healthcare contracts and put it in your Claude , ChatGPT, grok, Gemini, whatever and use this prompt
“Where are they ripping me off “
They are always shocked.
It is a mechanism of institutional stability.
The more complex the system is, the more responsibility is delegated, the more fragmented understanding is, and the less likely anyone is to challenge the architecture.
Once organizations optimize for the same incentives, the boundaries between them become less important than the architecture they inhabit.
— The Hospital Cartel
The real misconception is that these institutions are independent because they are organizationally separate.
Insurance companies.
Hospital systems.
Pharmaceutical companies.
Physicians.
Government.
Different institutions.
Same institutional logic.
The biggest misconception in healthcare is not that insurance companies run everything.
They do not.
Insurance companies.
Hospital systems.
Pharmaceutical companies.
Physicians.
Government.
American healthcare isn’t one power center.
It’s five.
Every major healthcare story is really a negotiation between them.
Once you see that, you can’t unsee it.
The temptation never changes.
The more responsibility we transfer into systems, the less often anyone must answer the oldest ethical question.
“Who decided?”
And when that question no longer has human answer, we have not merely automated work.
We have delegated our humanity.
The root problem is not artificial intelligence.
It is humanity’s recurring inclination to delegate uniquely human responsibilities to systems.
We began by building systems to extend human capability. Laws, bureaucracies, markets, protocols, and institutions…
Yet they execute decisions whose ethical consequences remain exclusively human.
The danger is not that machines become human.
It is that humans become willing to treat machine outputs as substitutes for human judgment.
Every generation gives this delegation a new technology.
We assume technology must adapt to humanity.
Institutions have often done the opposite.
They redesign work so that people become compatible with the technology.
AI won’t just change the workplace.
The workplace will change to maximize AI.
— The Hospital Cartel
Humanoids have all kinds of issues. Latency. Processing power. Dexterity. They aren’t designed to be optimal at much of anything.
they have to be upgraded continuously.
They will be great novelties for a while. “Get me a beer” “ Fold my clothes. “ etc
But the downside for humanoids is that application specific devices/robots will be faster/better/cheaper.
When they are, our homes and work places will be built and modified to leverage those ASRs (application specific robots)
Logistics have already set this path
AI doesn’t determine the future of institutions.
Institutions determine the role of AI.
If the architecture values human judgment, AI will amplify it.
If the architecture values process over judgment, AI will accelerate that.
AI is not the author.
It is the amplifier.
— The HC
Models don’t know the consequences of their actions.
People know what will get them fired.
Models suffer from information latency.
People understand what they see right in front of them.
2 skills AI won’t have for a long long long time. If ever.
2 skills that are invaluable to every business decision.
How often in business do you need to “read the room” and make a decision ?
Add AI productivity to the real time capacity and judgement of humans , and you will get the greatest return on both investments.
The challenge is management understanding how to leverage the combination, and forgetting the original expectation that AI and white collar workers are mutually exclusive. They are not
Done right , the combo is a business propellant and competitive advantage.
less visible, less contestable, and therefore more permanent.
The machine did not become more just.
The process became better at surviving correction.
— The Hospital Cartel
Thank you again, X.
First, the machine suspended my account. A human reviewed the decision and concluded that I had committed no violation.
Then the machine suspended me again.
Again, human review reversed the decision and found no violation…
What is tangible here is the durability of process over human judgment.
A human could reverse the machine’s decision, but the judgment did not endure. The architecture did. It returned in a form more resistant to review…