Oh look, another Trump/Musk policy that screws rural Americans

[markfromj]

If it’s the choice between someone living or dying…

Insurance companies do not make these choices.

 

[markfromj]

Long life expectancy just increases the deficit. @markfromj probably

It does indeed. But there are other stronger benefits to extending life.

 

[DFSNOLE]

Insurance companies do not make these choices.

If they make choices on whether or not to approve life saving, but possibly very expensive, medical procedures, they certainly do.

 

[Tom Paris]

Insurance companies do not make these choices.

They do every damn day, mark.

 

[Moral]

Policy? They aren’t even in office yet and nothing has been passed. Chill!

We live in a nation where money is speech by some Orwellian doublespeak logic, thanks to our highest court in the land, and opened the flood gates of money to rig the system even more in favor those that already have the most.

Now we also live in a nation where Elon Musk dropped 1/4 of a billion dollars to curry favor from Trump, and for his investment he gained 200 billion dollars of wealth, a government overwatch department, and he is picking what gets cut. We have already witnessed a conflict of interest in what he wanted put back into the budget deal in regards to his business and China. He is also a defense contractor, so this isn't even a revolving door, it's both.

I can't imagine how this doesn't send off alarms.

 

[Moral]

It does indeed. But there are other stronger benefits.

I took a cool screenshot yesterday because the Internet is serious business.

 

[sober_teacher]

Every month my insurance company makes it a complete pain to renew a prescription my doctor wants me to take. When I walked out of the pharmacy yesterday, after being told they could only give it to me for $900, I said to myself, this is the kind of thing that now gets CEOs killed. It’s maddening. No other country has citizens dealing with this. Every month they make my doctor jump through hoops.

When I was in my 20s I had my gall bladder removed. The summer after I started my first teaching job for two years. Then I got laid off and lost my insurance. Because of that surgery 2 years earlier, despite an otherwise excellent history of good health, I couldn’t get insurance for a couple of years after because I had a preexisting coverage.

Insurance companies do not make these choices.

Already stated, everytime they choose not to cover the cost of a particular surgery they absolutely do.

 

[BioHawk]

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.

I needed to see a cardiologist. The soonest appointment I could get was in March. The appointment was made back in October. So, tell me about these waiting lists again?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

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?

I can't believe that you invoked a 20-year-old crackpot screed from a whiny Mises Institute guy.

For those who may care, here's Krugmann's article

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/17/opinion/the-health-of-nations.html

and here's Anderson's childish attack piece

Health Care in Prison | Mises Institute

Not even Krugman advocates an economic system akin to what we see in North Korea of the former Soviet Union. Yet, as William Anderson points out, we are now

mises.org

 

[RicoSuave102954]

Every month my insurance company makes it a complete pain to renew a prescription my doctor wants me to take. When I walked out of the pharmacy yesterday, after being told they could only give it to me for $900, I said to myself, this is the kind of thing that now gets CEOs killed. It’s maddening. No other country has citizens dealing with this. Every month they make my doctor jump through hoops.

Get a different doctor who can properly write a prescription.

 

[RicoSuave102954]

I've said it before. Rico is Ryan's dumbest and most entertaining handle. 😂

Sorry Hillbilly they are not one in the same.

 

[seminole97]

I can't believe that you invoked a 20-year-old crackpot screed from a whiny Mises Institute guy.

To my ear the whiny people are the ones who want someone else to pay for the goods and services they want for themselves.
It’s always presented by the left as ‘greedy’ to want keep the money you’ve earned, but never ‘greedy’ to want to take the money that other people have earned and have it spent on you.
At the root of every call for ‘other people payer’ systems is an expectation to otherwise get more than you could afford for yourself. As if that were possible on net, never mind just.

 

[seminole97]

I needed to see a cardiologist. The soonest appointment I could get was in March. The appointment was made back in October. So, tell me about these waiting lists again?

Now pick an industry where the government doesn’t already control more than half the spending.
When you want a loaf of bread, how long do you wait? How many prior authorizations do you need to obtain?

 

[RileyHawk]

To my ear the whiny people are the ones who want someone else to pay for the goods and services they want for themselves.
It’s always presented by the left as ‘greedy’ to want keep the money you’ve earned, but never ‘greedy’ to want to take the money that other people have earned and have it spent on you.
At the root of every call for ‘other people payer’ systems is an expectation to otherwise get more than you could afford for yourself. As if that were possible on net, never mind just.

So, in your mind, insurance of any kind is simply a scam?

I'm guessing you will avoid this question as well.

 

[RileyHawk]

Now pick an industry where the government doesn’t already control more than half the spending.
When you want a loaf of bread, how long do you wait? How many prior authorizations do you need to obtain?

What was the government's role in making bread so easily accessible?

Crickets coming.

 

[DFSNOLE]

I can't believe that you invoked a 20-year-old crackpot screed from a whiny Mises Institute guy.

For those who may care, here's Krugmann's article

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/17/opinion/the-health-of-nations.html

and here's Anderson's childish attack piece

Health Care in Prison | Mises Institute

Not even Krugman advocates an economic system akin to what we see in North Korea of the former Soviet Union. Yet, as William Anderson points out, we are now

mises.org

There's a reason he doesn't cite his sources.

 

[DFSNOLE]

Sorry Hillbilly they are not one in the same.

They?

 

[seminole97]

There's a reason he doesn't cite his sources.

You're right, when I'm posting from my phone I don't bother with it because it's a PITA and anyone who isn't geriatric can easily plug it into google and see the source.

There's no 'hiding' a source when it's published on the internet and indexed by webcrawlers.

I've explained this to you before, I don't know why you find it so hard. Chrome will even let you highlight text, right click and one of the context menu choices is submit the highlighted text to Google. If you do the same thing with Edge it submits the query to Bing.

I don't understand people who struggle with this.

 

[DFSNOLE]

You're right, when I'm posting from my phone I don't bother with it because it's a PITA and anyone who isn't geriatric can easily plug it into google and see the source.

There's no 'hiding' a source when it's published on the internet and indexed by webcrawlers.

I've explained this to you before, I don't know why you find it so hard. Chrome will even let you highlight text, right click and one of the context menu choices is submit the highlighted text to Google. If you do the same thing with Edge it submits the query to Bing.

I don't understand people who struggle with this.

You're already on the site. No one can post the source any easier than you. Take this weak crap elsewhere.

 

[RileyHawk]

You're right, when I'm posting from my phone I don't bother with it because it's a PITA and anyone who isn't geriatric can easily plug it into google and see the source.

There's no 'hiding' a source when it's published on the internet and indexed by webcrawlers.

I've explained this to you before, I don't know why you find it so hard. Chrome will even let you highlight text, right click and one of the context menu choices is submit the highlighted text to Google. If you do the same thing with Edge it submits the query to Bing.

I don't understand people who struggle with this.

Posting a link is WAY easier than copying and pasting. Particularly on a phone.

You've been exposed as a fraud once again.

 

[Hawkstate1]

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!

No worries there won't be a dem president for many many years. Americans are too smart to vote for failures like Biden and Obama again.

 

[seminole97]

You're already on the site. No one can post the source any easier than you. Take this weak crap elsewhere.

On your iPhone you can highlight the text, tap it, and select Search on Web.

Well, everyone but your weak ass can.

 

[RileyHawk]

On your iPhone you can highlight the text, tap it, and select Search on Web.

Well, everyone but your weak as can.

On every phone you can simply click on the link.

Speaking of weak ass...

 

[Menace Sockeyes]

@seminole97 finally got meet his hero and ask him his biggest question:

1.4M views · 42K reactions | A Tesla shareholder asked Elon Musk about Tesla’s plan for an aquatic car during the company’s 2019 annual shareholder meeting. Media: tesla | Entrepreneurs On IG

A Tesla shareholder asked Elon Musk about Tesla’s plan for an aquatic car during the company’s 2019 annual shareholder meeting. Media: tesla.

www.facebook.com

 

[lucas80]

View embedded media

He will give them plenty of trans bashing and concentration camps for brown people soon enough to keep them occupied and aggrieved to the point they accept they are getting screwed over.

 

[lucas80]

Every month my insurance company makes it a complete pain to renew a prescription my doctor wants me to take. When I walked out of the pharmacy yesterday, after being told they could only give it to me for $900, I said to myself, this is the kind of thing that now gets CEOs killed. It’s maddening. No other country has citizens dealing with this. Every month they make my doctor jump through hoops.

It fascinated me that tying up representatives on the phone once a month helps them make money. We deal with the same s**t.

 

[joelbc1]

Shame how obamacare removed competition from the markets and allowed big insurance to get away with this. Democrats literally gave them this power.

Scruffy….there was a reason for ObamaCare……..and it was a large part because health insurance companies refused to compete with any one. They simply denied to pay for services.

 

[SI_NYC]

My favorite thing about Bernie bros is watching them defend capitalism to explain why it's justified for Bernie to have a lakeside dacha when there are thousands and thousands of homeless people.
Millionaires were the problem until he became one, now the billionaires are the problem.
lulz

Spoken like a true moron.

 

[Scruddy]

Scruffy….there was a reason for ObamaCare……..and it was a large part because health insurance companies refused to compete with any one. They simply denied to pay for services.

So the solution was to consolidate power and limit competition? Galaxy brain move by the dems...

 

[joelbc1]

So the solution was to consolidate power and limit competition? Galaxy brain move by the dems...

Wasn’t the Dems as much as Congress and the insurance industry. Dems just solved the problem. Insurance companies had not solutions except what they were doing, which was creating the problem.

 

[joelbc1]

Spoken like a true moron.

THat’s what MAGA always gives you. Every. Damn. Time.

 

[seminole97]

Spoken like a true moron.

What justification do you think a self described socialist has for multiple homes while people are homeless?

 

[bhawk24bob]

It fascinated me that tying up representatives on the phone once a month helps them make money. We deal with the same s**t.

Does your insurance offer mail order and 90 day refills? Might be an easier way to try that

 

[Jimmy McGill]

I took a cool screenshot yesterday because the Internet is serious business.

Oh boy.... I laughed hard when I just saw this post. couldn't stop laughing. Thanks Moral

 

[Jimmy McGill]

Oh boy.... I laughed hard when I just saw this post. couldn't stop laughing. Thanks Moral

I might need some signature gif? do they allow such things here? I literally get dumber by the day on anything tech. I really need to find a job that will challenge my mind by pushing it again.

 

[BioHawk]

Now pick an industry where the government doesn’t already control more than half the spending.
When you want a loaf of bread, how long do you wait? How many prior authorizations do you need to obtain?

You....you don't get where prior authorizations come from? It's not the government. Holy crap.

 

[seminole97]

You....you don't get where prior authorizations come from? It's not the government. Holy crap.

Go back to the beginning of the system we have in place.
Why is healthcare spending run through an insurance model?
Because as a method of getting around WW2 wage and price controls employers got into the business of paying employees with medical benefits (not subject to income and payroll taxes).

That whole model is a broken delivery method for the goods and services we want.

It got to the point the government mandated we carry insurance and use this method to get the goods and services we want, and we were to be fined if we didn't want to.

It needs to be ditched forthwith.
Let people buy what they want for themselves with their money, like everything else we enjoy.
In the sectors of the economy not completely entwined in government mandates or navigating byzantine regulations we see the product improve and the price go down.

The current method isn't making things better, it's obviously making them worse than they would otherwise be.

In the end, there are three ways to do things:

1. You spend someone else's money on what you want, making cost a non-issue to you compared to quality and quantity.
2. Someone else spends money on what you want, cost obviously their greater concern than your appreciation of the quality and quantity.
3. You spend your money on what you want, so that you weigh those factors, and balance them in your best interest.

Can you fathom the government mandating you to pay for 'food insurance' and being confined to a predefined list of vendors, with someone else deciding how many grapes you get, and what variety, and on what schedule, or if grapes were even approved?
Do you really think that method would maximize satisfaction with outcomes?
And yet we've normalized this madness in the production and consumption of healthcare.

 

[seminole97]

You....you don't get where prior authorizations come from? It's not the government. Holy crap.

BTW, my dad is a vet with 100% disability. He gave the government 20 years of his life in return of a promise of free medical care for him and his wife.
Do you think he faces prior authorizations, or just goes to see whatever healthcare provider he wants, when he wants, and Uncle Sam picks up the tab no questions asked?

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

Go back to the beginning of the system we have in place.
Why is healthcare spending run through an insurance model?
Because as a method of getting around WW2 wage and price controls employers got into the business of paying employees with medical benefits (not subject to income and payroll taxes).

That whole model is a broken delivery method for the goods and services we want.

It got to the point the government mandated we carry insurance and use this method to get the goods and services we want, and we were to be fined if we didn't want to.

It needs to be ditched forthwith.
Let people buy what they want for themselves with their money, like everything else we enjoy.
In the sectors of the economy not completely entwined in government mandates or navigating byzantine regulations we see the product improve and the price go down.

The current method isn't making things better, it's obviously making them worse than they would otherwise be.

In the end, there are three ways to do things:

1. You spend someone else's money on what you want, making cost a non-issue to you compared to quality and quantity.
2. Someone else spends money on what you want, cost obviously their greater concern than your appreciation of the quality and quantity.
3. You spend your money on what you want, so that you weigh those factors, and balance them in your best interest.

Can you fathom the government mandating you to pay for 'food insurance' and being confined to a predefined list of vendors, with someone else deciding how many grapes you get, and what variety, and on what schedule, or if grapes were even approved?
Do you really think that method would maximize satisfaction with outcomes?
And yet we've normalized this madness in the production and consumption of healthcare.

How exactly would individuals pay for their own health care?

 

[joelbc1]

What justification do you think a self described socialist has for multiple homes while people are homeless?

What answer does the MAGA fascist have for multiple homes while people are homeless?
Pick your poison, Seminole.