Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Health

The People Cheering Brian Thompson’s Murder Can’t Have the Medical Utopia That They Want

Published

5 months ago

9 minute read

Whether private or public, third-party payment for health care is a huge problem.

Evoking a collective scream of despair from socialists and anti-corporate types, police in Pennsylvania arrested Luigi Mangione, a suspect in the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Thompson, they insist, stood in the way of the sort of health care they think they deserve and shooting him down on the street was some sort of bloody-minded strike for justice.

The assassin’s fans—and the legal system has yet to convict anybody for the crime—are moral degenerates. But they’re also dreaming, if they think insurance executives like Thompson are all that stands between them and their visions of a single-payer medical system that satisfies every desire. While there is a lot wrong with the main way health care is paid for and delivered in the U.S., what the haters want is probably not achievable, and the means many of them prefer would make things worse.

“Unlimited Care…Free of Charge”

“It is an old joke among health policy wonks that what the American people really want from health care reform is unlimited care, from the doctor of their choice, with no wait, free of charge,” Michael Tanner, then of the Cato Institute, quipped in 2017.

The problem, no matter how health care is delivered, is that it requires labor, time, and resources that are available in finite supply. Somebody must decide how to allocate medications, treatments, physicians, and hospital beds, and how to pay for it all. A common assumption in some circles is that Americans ration medicine by price, handing an advantage to the wealthy and sticking it to the poor.

“Today, as everyone knows, health care in the US can be prohibitively expensive even for people who have insurance,” Dylan Scott sniffed this week at Vox.

The alternative, supposedly, is one where health care is “universal,” with bills paid by government so everybody has access to care. Except, most Americans rely on somebody else to pay the bulk of their medical bills just like Canadians, Germans, and Britons. And while there are huge differences among the systems presented as alternatives to the one in the U.S., third-party payers—whether governments or insurance companies—do enormous damage to the provision of health care.

Third-Party Payers, Both Public and Private, Raise Costs

“Contrary to ‘conventional wisdom,’ health insurance—private or otherwise—does not make health care more affordable,” Jeffrey Singer, a surgeon and senior fellow with the Cato Institute, wrote in 2013. “The third party payment system is the principal force behind health care price inflation.”

In the U.S., the dominance of third-party payment, whether Thompson’s UnitedHealthcare, one of its competitors, Medicare, Medicaid, or something else, makes it difficult to know the price for procedures, medicines, and treatments—because there really isn’t one price when third-party payers are involved.

Several years ago, the first Trump administration required hospitals to publish prices for services. My local hospital offers an Excel spreadsheet with wildly varying prices for procedures and services, from different categories of self-pay, Medicare, Medicaid, and negotiated rates for competing insurance plans.

“A colonoscopy might cost you or your insurer a few hundred dollars—or several thousand, depending on which hospital or insurer you use,” NPR’s Julie Appleby pointed out in 2021.

That said, savvy patients paying their own bills can usually get a lower price than that paid by insurance.

“When government, lawyers, or third party insurance is responsible for paying the bills, consumers have no incentive to control costs,” Arthur Laffer, Donna Arduin, and Wayne Winegarden wrote in the 2009 paper, The Prognosis for National Health Insurance. After all, the premium or tax is already paid, right?

Other Countries Struggle With Similar Issues

Concerns about rising costs, demand, and finite resources apply just as much when the payer is the government.

“State health insurance patients are struggling to see their doctors towards the end of every quarter, while privately insured patients get easy access,” Germany’s Deutsche Welle reported in 2018. “The researchers traced the phenomenon to Germany’s ‘budget’ system, which means that state health insurance companies only reimburse the full cost of certain treatments up to a particular number of patients or a particular monetary value.” Budgeting is quarterly, and once it’s exhausted, that’s it.

Last year in the U.K., a Healthwatch report complained: “We’re seeing a two-tier system emerge, where healthcare is accessible only to those who can afford it, with one in seven people who responded to our poll advised to seek private care by NHS [National Health Service] staff.” Britain’s NHS remains popular, but it has long struggled with the demand and expense for cancer care and other expensive treatments.

And Canada’s single-payer system famously relies heavily on long wait times to ration care. “In 2023, physicians report a median wait time of 27.7 weeks between a referral from a general practitioner and receipt of treatment,” the Fraser Institute found last year. “This represents the longest delay in the survey’s history and is 198% longer than the 9.3 weeks Canadian patients could expect to wait in 1993.”

You have to wonder what those so furious at Brian Thompson that they would applaud his murder would say about the officials managing systems elsewhere. None of them deliver “unlimited care, from the doctor of their choice, with no wait, free of charge.” Some lack the minimal discipline imposed by what competition exists among insurers in the U.S.

We Need Less Government Involvement in Medicine

“Policymakers need to understand that the key to ‘affordable health care’ is not to increase the role of health insurance in peoples’ lives, but to diminish it,” Cato’s Singer concluded.

My family found that true when we contracted with a primary care practice that refuses insurance. We pay fixed annual fees, which includes exams, laboratory services, and some procedures. My doctor caught my atrial fibrillation when he walked me across his clinic hall on a hunch to run an EKG.

The Surgery Center of Oklahoma famously follows a similar model for much more than primary care. It publishes its prices, which don’t include the overhead and uncertainty of dealing with third-party payers.

Those examples point to a better health care system than what exists in the United States—or in most other countries, for that matter. They’re probably not the whole answer, because it’s unlikely that one approach will suit millions of people with different medical concerns, incomes, and preferences. But making people more, rather than less, responsible for their own health care, and getting government and other third-parties as far out of the matter as possible, is far better than cheering the murder of people who supposedly stand between us and an imaginary medical utopia.
Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Agriculture / 5 hours ago

Liberal win puts Canada’s farmers and food supply at risk

International / 7 hours ago

Nigeria, 3 other African countries are deadliest for Christians: report

Alberta / 7 hours ago

Alberta’s future in Canada depends on Carney’s greatest fear: Trump or Climate Change

Mental Health

Headline that reads ‘Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court’ a sign of the times in Canada

Published on April 30, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

Gender ideology so entrenched, surgical mutilation is no longer considered fringe

If you’d like a glimpse of what 10 years of progressive rule has done to Canada in a single sentence, I submit to you this April 24 headline: “Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court.”

Imagine reading a headline like that in, say, 2010. You’d wonder what country you were living in — that is, if you weren’t trying to figure out what you just read. But in Canada in 2025, this stuff isn’t fringe. It’s establishment.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, the province’s top court, issued a ruling this week stating that the province must pay for a “penile-sparing vaginoplasty” for a resident who identifies as transgender but does not identify “exclusively” as either male or female and thus would like to possess both a penis and a vagina.

According to the Post, “a three-judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed a lower court’s ruling that the novel phallus-preserving surgery qualifies as an insured service under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan.” In case you’re tempted to write this off as an aberration at the hands of a handful of activist judges, this ruling is the third unanimous decision in favor of the “patient,” identified in court records as “K.S.”

“K.S. is pleased with the Court of Appeal’s decision, which is now the third unanimous ruling confirming that her gender affirming surgery is covered under Ontario’s Health Insurance Act and its regulation,” K.S.’s lawyer, John McIntyre, told the Post. K.S., as it turns out, identifies as neither male nor female … but uses female pronouns:

The legal battle between K.S., whose sex at birth was male, dates to 2022, when the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) refused her request to pay for the cost of surgery at a Texas clinic to construct a vagina while sparing the penis, a procedure this is not available in Ontario, or anywhere else in Canada. K.S. uses female pronouns but does not identify as either fully female or fully male.

Previously, saner generations would have no idea how to interpret the preceding paragraph, but gender ideology has made fools of us all. OHIP attempted to argue that “because the vaginoplasty would not be accompanied by a penectomy, the procedure isn’t one specifically listed in OHIP’s Schedule of Benefits and therefore shouldn’t be publicly funded” and also that the surgery is “experimental” in Ontario and thus can’t be covered.

But K.S., who has a male member but would also like a neo-vagina, appealed to the Health Services Appeal and Review Board, which overturned OHIP’s decision. OHIP appealed to the Divisional Court but lost; the latest appeal, heard November 26, was also rejected because a “penectomy,” the removal of the penis, was “neither recommended by K.S.’s health professionals nor desired by K.S.,” according to the court’s decision.

I wonder if the judges thought that they’d be ruling on whether a man who identifies as neither a man or a woman was entitled to obtain a vagina while retaining his penis when they were going to law school.

The court stated that K.S., who is in his early 30s, “has experienced significant gender dysphoria since her teenage years, as well as physical, mental and economic hardships to transition her gender expression to align with her gender identity.” Of course, K.S. isn’t “transgender,” per se — because he doesn’t identify as the opposite sex, even though he uses the pronouns of the opposite sex. He wants to be … both, somehow. And he wants the taxpayer to pay for it.

K.S.’s doctor submitted a request to OHIP for prior funding approval for the surgical creation of a vaginal cavity and external vulva. The request made it clear that K.S. wasn’t seeking a penectomy. In a letter accompanying the request, her doctor said that because K.S. is “not completely on the ‘feminine’ end of the spectrum” it was important for her to have a vagina while maintaining her penis, adding that the Crane Center for Transgender Surgery in Austin, Tx.,” has an excellent reputation” for gender-affirming surgery, “and especially with these more complicated procedures.”

The surgeries, depending on which are performed, range in cost “from US $10,000 to $70,000.” The court also ordered Ontario to pay K.S. $23,250 after dismissing OHIP’s appeal; the province has until June 23 to seek leave to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Featured Image

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National Post, National Review, First Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton Spectator, Reformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

His insights have been featured on CTV, Global News, and the CBC, as well as over twenty radio stations. He regularly speaks on a variety of social issues at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions in Canada, the United States, and Europe.

He is the author of The Culture War, Seeing is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of Abortion, Patriots: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Pro-Life Movement, Prairie Lion: The Life and Times of Ted Byfield, and co-author of A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide with Blaise Alleyne.

Jonathon serves as the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.

Continue Reading

Mental Health

Suspect who killed 11 in Vancouver festival attack ID’d

Published on April 28, 2025

By

MXM logo  MxM News

Quick Hit:

Authorities have identified the driver responsible for the devastating attack at Vancouver’s Lapu Lapu Day festival that killed at least 11 and injured dozens more. The suspect, Kai-Ji Adam Lo, 30, had a well-documented history of mental illness, and his family sought help just hours before the tragic event.

Key Details:

  • Kai-Ji Adam Lo, 30, was identified as the driver who plowed into a crowd, killing 11 and injuring dozens more.
  • Lo’s family sought psychiatric help for him hours before the attack; he was already known to law enforcement.
  • Police believe the attack was not terror-related, citing Lo’s extensive mental health struggles.

Diving Deeper:

The city of Vancouver is grappling with unspeakable tragedy following the deadly assault that unfolded during the Lapu Lapu Day festival, a vibrant celebration honoring the Filipino community. Authorities have identified the man behind the wheel as 30-year-old Kai-Ji Adam Lo, who was apprehended at the scene Saturday night.

Lo, whose troubled history with mental illness was well known to local authorities and mental health professionals, faces eight counts of second-degree murder, with additional charges expected as the investigation continues. According to reports, Lo’s family had reached out to a hospital psychiatric ward just hours before the incident, desperately seeking help for him amid his escalating paranoia and delusions. It remains unclear whether any intervention was made in response to the family’s call.

Vancouver Police Chief Steve Rai confirmed that Lo had no interactions with law enforcement immediately prior to the event, but acknowledged that the city is reeling from its “darkest day.” Investigators emphasized that, because of Lo’s mental state, they do not believe the attack was terror-related.

Adding to the complex portrait of the suspect, Lo was mourning profound personal loss. His brother, Alexander Lo, was murdered in January 2024. Following the death, Lo had penned heartbreaking posts online, sharing how his brother’s death and his mother’s subsequent suicide attempt shattered their family.

Tragically, among the 11 killed during Saturday’s carnage was a 5-year-old child. Dozens more were wounded when Lo drove his SUV into the densely packed crowd gathered for the festivities. Lo has since appeared in court and will remain in custody as prosecutors prepare to bring additional charges.

The horror that unfolded in Vancouver serves as a stark reminder of the broader systemic failures surrounding mental health interventions. While Canadian authorities attempt to grapple with the aftermath, this tragedy sadly echoes similar stories in other nations where warnings about individuals in crisis have gone unheeded—with catastrophic results.

Continue Reading

Trending

X