Sure, but it also created a research project for me, instead of just speaking their mind for me to then respond to.
It just kills the conversation.
If you've got an opinion, voice your opinion. Why do you need someone else to speak for you?
Darkassassin07
joined 1 year ago
You certainly can, it may get seen eventually. But I'm not going to sit through an hour of someone else's content to figure out what point your trying to make.
If you won't even put some effort in and write your own thoughts out, why should I spend my time researching what you think?
It's the lack of effort that bothers me. Especially when my time is limited.
Thing is, medical equipment suppliers should be held to higher standards than they are currently. If you're providing medical equipment to be used in public healthcare: you should be responsible for maintaining and repairing it imo.
There should be a minimum requirement for repair/maintenance/warranty provided by the manufacturer.
Hospitals don't invest in the ability to perform such repairs largely because of the liability involved, ontop of often being a poorly funded/staffed public service.
The company license is no guarantee they aren't minimum wage nobodies.
No, but then the manufacturer is responsible for the quality of repair/maintenance performed by its staff.
If something goes wrong with the equipment; it's on the equipment manufacturer instead of the hospital using it.
With a mandate on repair/maintenance; they'd be forced to provide quality service to survive.
.... Ok then. Enjoy your stay at the deep end... Pce
Odd, the YouTube channel says 'LouisRossman', not 'Mango@lemmy.world'. Perhaps you are Louis incognito? Doesn't seem likely.
Again; I'd recommend actually reading this thread. Specifically; the reply from vrek, if you couldn't narrow that down for yourself.
Yes:
Did you actually read this thread and the replies in it, or were you just overwhelmed by the opportunity to post someone else's thoughts instead of your own?
That's rather short sighted. I just listed several.
Don't know about you: I'd rather not have the ventilator keeping grandma alive repaired by the hospitals underpaid maintenance department; but a trained technician from the company that built it.
Some things are about more than just an individuals personal liberties.
Parts pairing is just one piece of the puzzle; this is more broadly about access to parts, which would include proprietary refrigerants.
It's always been a concern; just not enough of one to explicitly forbid working on a vehicle without specific training/licensing. Hence vehicle inspections/roadworthy tests; someplaces more strictly than others.
It's possible that concern was part of the justification for not requiring manufacturers to make it easier. Spitballing.
As I said, I'm on the fence about it myself. Thing is, a vehicle on public roads has a lot of opportunity to injure or kill someone if a repair was made incorrectly. It's about more than just a person and the thing they own.
Some products — like devices powered by combustion engines, medical equipment, farming equipment, HVAC equipment, video game consoles, and energy storage systems — are excluded from Oregon’s rules entirely.
It's interesting to me that Game Consoles get an exception... Not sure whats up there, other than straight up ~~bribery~~ lobbying.
HVAC makes sense when you consider environmental concerns (some refrigerants are really terrible pollutants).
Medical equipment, particularly equipment in public health care should be held to high standards. Authorized, properly trained repair; peoples lives depend on it.
Energy storage when attached to public infrastructure (you back-feeding the grid) can be a saftey concern for workers and the supply/load needs to be balanced to prevent damaging that infrastructure and other private equipment attached to it. Not sure preventing repair is the right move here; you can still buy and install new without oversight. Perhaps it's again a saftey concern (for the person performing repair).
Vehicles, farming or otherwise, I'm on the fence about; there's an argument to be made for public saftey/roadworthness, but I'm not sure that's enough of an argument to prevent home-repair. Again seems more to do with lobbying than anything else.
Yes, it is a project.
They could have summarized the point in a couple paragraphs instead of demanding I waste an hour of my time to be able to respond at all. First I'd have to actually have that much free time; which I haven't had today until just now.