- Sep 13, 2002
- 98,661
- 206,519
- 113
Oh look, another Trump/Musk policy that screws rural Americans
- Thread starter torbee
- Start date
They should be honored that their lost 9/11 healthcare benefits will turn into a tax break for a billionaire.
I'm sure they'll get their funding in the next spending bill. Unfortunately, to trim the fat of the extremely bloated government we have, some hard choices have to be made.
And yet there are people who wish all healthcare was provided by politically funded bureaucracies.
As if 'single payer' meant 'unlimited payer', instead of 'somebody else payer' and 'somebody else decides if you get it'.
The Canadians have banned private health insurance for anything deemed medically necessary by the state. That has not resulted in a socialist paradise, where no medical claim is ever denied. The state keeps a lid on spending by forcing Canadians to wait—and wait and wait—for care.
This year, the median wait for care from a specialist following referral by a general practitioner was 30 weeks, according to research published this month by the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute. That's up from 27.7 weeks just last year. And it's more than triple the median wait of 9.3 weeks in 1993, when Fraser started keeping track.
They wait for access to advanced technology, too. The median wait for an MRI was over 16 weeks this year; for a CT scan, it was more than eight weeks.
Canada's single-payer health plan effectively denies claims for novel prescription drugs in advance—by refusing to cover them at all. Of the 460 new medicines launched worldwide between January 2012 and December 2021, just 45 percent were available in Canada as of October 2022.
Americans, by contrast, had access to 85 percent of those new medicines.
The story is similar in Britain. Private insurance is legal across the Atlantic; around 1 in 8 Britons has it. They buy it because wait times for care in the publicly run health care system are interminable.
About 7.5 million people were on waiting lists for National Health Service (NHS) treatment in England when the current Labor government took office earlier this year—an increase of 66 percent since before the pandemic.
Just over two-thirds of people in England who received a cancer diagnosis started treatment within two months of an urgent referral in October 2024. So thousands of people are waiting longer than is clinically advisable for cancer care. One literature review published in the BMJ, a medical journal, found that a four-week delay in cancer surgery was associated with a 6-8 percent increase in mortality risk.
More than 420,000 Britons were on wait lists for heart care as of October 2024. Forty percent of them had been waiting for time-sensitive cardiac care for more than 18 weeks.
The British government also rations access to cutting-edge medicines. Less than 6 in 10 new medicines that hit the market between 2012 and 2021 were available in Britain as of October 2022.
As if 'single payer' meant 'unlimited payer', instead of 'somebody else payer' and 'somebody else decides if you get it'.
The Canadians have banned private health insurance for anything deemed medically necessary by the state. That has not resulted in a socialist paradise, where no medical claim is ever denied. The state keeps a lid on spending by forcing Canadians to wait—and wait and wait—for care.
This year, the median wait for care from a specialist following referral by a general practitioner was 30 weeks, according to research published this month by the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute. That's up from 27.7 weeks just last year. And it's more than triple the median wait of 9.3 weeks in 1993, when Fraser started keeping track.
They wait for access to advanced technology, too. The median wait for an MRI was over 16 weeks this year; for a CT scan, it was more than eight weeks.
Canada's single-payer health plan effectively denies claims for novel prescription drugs in advance—by refusing to cover them at all. Of the 460 new medicines launched worldwide between January 2012 and December 2021, just 45 percent were available in Canada as of October 2022.
Americans, by contrast, had access to 85 percent of those new medicines.
The story is similar in Britain. Private insurance is legal across the Atlantic; around 1 in 8 Britons has it. They buy it because wait times for care in the publicly run health care system are interminable.
About 7.5 million people were on waiting lists for National Health Service (NHS) treatment in England when the current Labor government took office earlier this year—an increase of 66 percent since before the pandemic.
Just over two-thirds of people in England who received a cancer diagnosis started treatment within two months of an urgent referral in October 2024. So thousands of people are waiting longer than is clinically advisable for cancer care. One literature review published in the BMJ, a medical journal, found that a four-week delay in cancer surgery was associated with a 6-8 percent increase in mortality risk.
More than 420,000 Britons were on wait lists for heart care as of October 2024. Forty percent of them had been waiting for time-sensitive cardiac care for more than 18 weeks.
The British government also rations access to cutting-edge medicines. Less than 6 in 10 new medicines that hit the market between 2012 and 2021 were available in Britain as of October 2022.
And yet they still prefer their socialized healthcare systems over ours just like every other advanced country does.
So much this.
These single-pay or advocates always seem to see it as a fix for private insurer claim denials.
Well, how free with money do you think an “insurance company” that is $36 Trillion in debt is going to be? It will be denial city!
That explains why the wealthy come to the US for procedures lol
Canada encourages medically assisted suicide for a reason. Weird that they can speed walk you through that process but take 6 months plus for basic health screenings.
It’s raining dildos of consequences and our boy is not even president yet.
Last edited:
Cool? The wealthy have more options and get a higher level of care in our system as well. Still doesn't negate the fact that average person in those countries would rather have socialized healthcare than our system.
I for one have loved watching the left scramble and "but trump!" Everything in politics for the last years. They won't acknowledge that biden is a dementia patient who should have been 25th'd at least 2 years ago and instead have to blame their boogeyman bc they're incapable of accepting responsibility for their actions.
Yeah, bc our healthcare is better. Unless you want to wait 6 months to get your stomach ulcers even looked at. Canada suicide line is 24/7 though..
Only about 1100 more days of constant chaos
Insurance companies are actually denying and effectively killing Americans in reality. It isn't disputable. But yeah let's be afraid of the hypothetical of debt creating a denial city under single payer.
Not gonna lie, these news stories bring a smile to my face. Yes, I’m an asshole and I hope every single dumb fvck Trump voter feels pain and suffering for their idiotic views. Fvcking morons lol.
That makes no sense. A government not making profit and willing to overspend vs a corporation making 6 billion dollars of net income every three months and you think the corporation is going to deny less claims. Truly laughable.
The dildo of consequences often arrives unlubed
I know! Let's cut the fat by reducing revenues.
The best way to do that is to cut taxes.
But don't worry, tariffs will act like a federal sales tax and everything will be fine.
Shame how obamacare removed competition from the markets and allowed big insurance to get away with this. Democrats literally gave them this power.
I’ve gradually come to the opinion that healthcare shouldn’t be guided by profit considerations.
You want healthcare/insurance for optional care? Be my guest. If it’s the choice between someone living or dying, that shouldn’t be guided by whether the insurance company will make money.
Yep both the MAGAs and the Democrat idiots that crossed over or sat it out such as Latinos, Muslims, Black Men, White Women, Union Workers and really voted / abstained against their self interests.
Yep, i have the VA and love it, screw the cons that voted for the brain dead CON idiots. I CAN'T FEEL YOUR PAIN.
Last edited:
Bootstraps people, find em and pull em. Let’s go
Love the chaos...let the Radical Right suffer the consequences of their vote.
Problem is...the next Dem President gonna have the task of clearing up the mess......again!
Problem is...the next Dem President gonna have the task of clearing up the mess......again!
No. Corporations are the only way bro. Look at the mess these other first world countries compared to us, spending far less and living longer. Disaster. Corporate for profit insurance is the only way. The US is doing great spending by far the most and having life expectancies slightly better than South American countries.
Life expectancy vs. health expenditure
Health expenditure includes all financing schemes and covers all aspects of healthcare. This data is adjusted for inflation and differences in the cost of living between countries.
ourworldindata.org
U.S. ranks last in health care compared with nine other high-income countries, report finds
People in the U.S. die the youngest and experience the most avoidable deaths, despite spending much more on health care.
www.nbcnews.com
No. Corporations are the only way bro. Look at the mess these other first world countries compared to us, spending far less and living longer. Disaster. Public for profit insurance is the only way. The US is doing great spending by far the most and having life expectancies slightly better than South American countries.
Life expectancy vs. health expenditure
Health expenditure includes all financing schemes and covers all aspects of healthcare. This data is adjusted for inflation and differences in the cost of living between countries.
Long life expectancy just increases the deficit. @markfromj probably
Canada has better health outcomes than the US.
That only works if insurance is affordable for all imo. Because people still receive emergency care who don’t have insurance and can’t pay for it themselves , those costs are getting passed on to everyone else, which helps drive up the cost of everything else.No. Corporations are the only way bro. Look at the mess these other first world countries compared to us, spending far less and living longer. Disaster. Corporate for profit insurance is the only way. The US is doing great spending by far the most and having life expectancies slightly better than South American countries.
Life expectancy vs. health expenditure
Health expenditure includes all financing schemes and covers all aspects of healthcare. This data is adjusted for inflation and differences in the cost of living between countries.
I’m all ears if you can come up with something better than the ACA; we know the republicans don’t. What we had before didn’t work, just little things like insurance companies being able to deny insurance coverage if someone had a preexisting condition.
But besides that, everything else is great with our system. I mean, as anyone who has had or had a family member have serious health issues, look how easy our system is to navigate and get approvals for everything. Very streamlined and efficient. 😂U.S. ranks last in health care compared with nine other high-income countries, report finds
People in the U.S. die the youngest and experience the most avoidable deaths, despite spending much more on health care.
So can we finally all agree that the affordable care act was a complete and total failure?U.S. ranks last in health care compared with nine other high-income countries, report finds
People in the U.S. die the youngest and experience the most avoidable deaths, despite spending much more on health care.
Butt hurt because the same BS budgeting that has gone on since 2010 might come to an end? Please keep finding minor, extreme cases to prolong the insanity
It’s all going to trickle down to them. Believe me — many people are saying it.
I literally LOL’d at this asinine take.
Last edited:
Especially since the GOP has held the House for 8/14 years, not sure about the senate.
Yep. Can’t wait to see what these people say in two years when the deficit has grown another few trillion.
How do you reckon 50% higher obesity rates factor into that?
To justify his claims that government medicine would be a social panacea, Krugman cites “a recent study” which claims “that private insurance companies spend 11.7 cents of every health care dollar on administrative costs, mainly advertising and underwriting, compared with 3.6 cents for Medicare and 1.3 cents for Canada’s government-run system.” (Of course, Krugman does not tell us who authored the study, or the criteria used to arrive at such conclusions, but we can be assured that whoever wrote it is not an advocate of private medical care.)
From there, Krugman’s reasoning is quite simple. If we were to go to socialist medicine, it would be cheaper than what exists right now and nothing else would change. All of us would receive the same care we do now—or perhaps even superior care.
In economics, we call this the ceteris paribus assumption, that is, “everything else being equal.” Unfortunately, Krugman’s assertion that the only thing that would change if government took over the entire medical apparatus here would be lower costs is more reminiscent of the many economists’ jokes that appear on Internet sites. (An economist and two others were stranded on a deserted island when a case of canned goods washed up on shore. While the others fretted about how to open the cans, the economist declared, “That’s easy. Just assume that we have a can opener.”)
Indeed, the Krugman “solution”—socialization and price controls (no doubt, he also would later advocate that the government seize drug companies as well) would almost certainly propel us to receive the same “high quality” medical care given to the nation’s prisoners. For example, after an earlier article on medical care on the Mises page, I received some emails from Canadians who had their own horror stories to tell.
One person told me about a friend whose diagnosis required removal of her gall bladder. According to the writer, she had to wait for 18 months before she could have surgery because of the long lines ahead of her. (Her “as soon as possible” case was not considered “urgent” enough for immediate care.)
The writer added:
The writer also added another anecdote that is very telling about the combination of modern culture and government:
On paper, the government of Canada “saved money” by forcing this woman to wait for “free” surgery. In reality, the government abused her, and should the Krugman medical state be implemented here in full (as this most-likely future Nobel Prize winner advocates), one can be sure that Americans would face the same kind of treatment that people in other countries with similar setups have received.
The reason is that for all his rhetoric, Krugman’s ceteris paribus standard cannot hold in this case. If Krugman were correct, then it would make sense for government to supply all scarce goods, since it would be able to deliver them at lower costs (using Krugman’s calculus) and, thus, save consumers money. Product quality would not change and everyone would be better off.
However, no one but the most diehard socialist would make the argument I have made. Not even Krugman will advocate something akin to what we see in North Korea of the former Soviet Union or China before it began to cast off its Maoist “heritage.” Yet, we are now left with a perplexing question: If socialism does not deliver the goods like bread and automobiles in large numbers and in high quality, why does anyone believe that the practice of medicine is an exception?
