Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Health

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

Published

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.

Health

Ivermectin & Fenbendazole Cancer Secrets Revealed

Published on

Vigilant News

Remarkable success stories are pouring in from people using Ivermectin and Fenbendazole to combat cancer.

Mel Gibson dropped a bombshell on Joe Rogan’s podcast, revealing that three of his friends had “stage four cancer,” and now “all three of them don’t have cancer right now at all.”

“And they had some serious stuff going on,” Gibson emphasized.

Dr. William Makis, who treated one of Gibson’s friends, has been rigorously researching the anti-cancer potential of Ivermectin and Fenbendazole over the past two years. During that time, he discovered, “There are over 100 papers on the success of Ivermectin and cancer.”

“Ivermectin can actually kill cancer stem cells,” Dr. Makis explained, noting that it targets the cells “that chemo can’t kill.” He added, “It can also reverse resistance that cancer cells develop to certain types of chemotherapy.”

The benefits extend further. “It [Ivermectin] makes cancer cells susceptible to radiation treatment as well. And so it’s a radiosensitizer,” he shared.

Yet, research into these applications has been neglected. “Big Pharma has completely abandoned it. Ivermectin is off-patent. No one’s going to make money on it,” Dr. Makis pointed out.

Taking action where others haven’t, Dr. Makis applied his findings to his practice. “I have over 1,000 cancer patients who are on either a combination of Ivermectin and Fenbendazole or Ivermectin and Mebendazole,” he shared.

Some of his patients were “given a terminal diagnosis” but are now “cancer-free” or have their “cancer under control.”

“Patients, for example, who are taking combinations of chemo and Ivermectin or radiation and Ivermectin are seeing dramatic results that oncologists have never seen, that radiation oncologists have never seen,” Dr. Makis shared.

“Tumors shrinking down to almost nothing, liver metastases disappearing, brain metastases disappearing.”

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of testimonials” documenting the success stories of Ivermectin and Fenbendazole, Dr. Makis added, offering hope to patients seeking alternatives.

He strongly believes that “the future of cancer care is in repurposed drugs.”

For more information on the use of Ivermectin and Fenbendazole for cancer,

follow Dr. William Makis MD on Substack.

Continue Reading

Addictions

New lawsuit challenges Ontario’s decision to prohibit safe consumption services

Published on

Kensington Market Overdose Prevention Site in Toronto, Dec. 18, 2024. [Photo credit: Alexandra Keeler]

By Alexandra Keeler

Critics says Ontario’s plan to replace supervised consumption sites with HART Hubs will exacerbate harms to drug addicts and strain the health-care system

The operator of a Toronto overdose prevention site is challenging Ontario’s decision to prohibit 10 supervised consumption sites from offering their services.

In December, Neighbourhood Group Community Services and two individuals launched a constitutional challenge to Ontario legislation that imposes 200-metre buffer zones between supervised consumption sites and schools and daycares. The Neighbourhood Group will be forced to close its site in Toronto’s Kensington Market as a result.

In its court challenge, the organization is arguing site closures discriminate against individuals with “substance use disabilities” and increase drug users’ risk of death and disease.

The challenge is the latest sign of growing opposition to Ontario’s decision to either shutter supervised consumption sites or transition them into Homelessness and Addiction Recovery Treatment (HART) Hubs. The hubs will offer drug users a range of primary care and housing solutions, but not supervised consumption, needle exchanges or the “safe supply” of prescription drugs.

Critics say the decision to suspend supervised consumption services will harm drug users and the health-care system.

“We’re very happy that the HART Hubs are being funded,” said Bill Sinclair, CEO of Neighbourhood Group Community Services. “They’re a great asset to the community.”

“[But] we want HART Hubs and we want supervised consumption sites.”

Our content is always free.

Subscribe to get BTN’s latest news and analysis, or donate to our journalism fund.

‘Come under fire’

On Thursday, the Ontario government announced that nine of the 10 supervised consumption sites located near centres with children would transition into HART Hubs. The Neighbourhood Group’s site is the only one not offered the opportunity to transition, because it is not provincially funded.

Laila Bellony, a harm reduction manager at a supervised consumption site at the Parkdale Queen West Community Health Centre in Toronto, says she is worried that drug users may avoid using HART Hubs altogether if they do not facilitate the use of drugs under the supervision of trained staff.

Data show this oversight can prevent deaths by facilitating immediate intervention in the event of an overdose.

Bellony is also concerned the site closures will increase the strain on other health-care services. She predicts longer wait times and bed shortages in hospital emergency rooms, as well as increased paramedic response times.

“I think the next thing that will happen is the medical or health-care system is going to come under fire for being sub-par. But it’s really all starting here from this decision,” she said.

She questions how the HART Hubs will meet demand for detox and recovery services or housing solutions.

Parkdale Queen West Community Health Centre and its sister site, the Queen West Site, serve hundreds of clients, Bellony says. By contrast, Ontario’s HART Hub rollout plan indicates all 19 hubs will together provide 375 new housing units across the province.

“The HART Hub model is not a horrible model,” said Bellony. “It’s the way that it’s being implemented that’s ill-informed.”

In a response to requests for commenta media spokesperson for the Ontario Ministry of Health directed Canadian Affairs to its August news release. That release lists proposals for increased safety measures at remaining sites, and a link to a HART Hub “client journey.”

On Dec. 3, the Auditor General of Ontario, Shelley Spence, released a report criticizing the health ministry’s “outdated” opioid strategy, noting it has not been updated since 2016.

National data show a 6.7 per cent drop in opioid deaths in early 2024. But experts caution it is too soon to call it a lasting trend. Opioid toxicity deaths in 2023 were up 205 per cent from 2016.

“We concluded that the Ministry does not have effective processes in place to meet the challenging and changing nature of the opioid crisis in Ontario,” the auditor general’s report says.

“The Ministry did not … provide a thorough, evidence-based business case analysis for the 2024 new model … [HART Hubs] to ensure that they are responsive to the needs of Ontarians.”

Parkdale Queen West Community Health Centre’s Queen West Site in Toronto, Dec. 18, 2024. [Photo credit: Alexandra Keeler]

‘Ill-informed’

Ontario has cited crime and public safety concerns as reasons for blocking supervised consumption sites near centres with children from offering their services.

“In Toronto, reports of assault in 2023 are 113 per cent higher and robbery is 97 per cent higher in neighbourhoods near these sites compared to the rest of the city,” Ontario Health Minister Sylvia Jones’ office said in an Aug. 20 press release.

The province has also cited concerns about prescription drugs dispensed through safer supply programs being diverted to the black market.

Police chiefs and sergeants in the Ontario cities of London and Ottawa have confirmed safer supply diversion is occurring in their municipalities.

“We are seeing significant increases in the availability of the diverted Dilaudid eight-milligram tablets, which are often prescribed as part of the safe supply initiatives,” London Police Chief Thai Truong said at a Nov. 26 parliamentary committee meeting examining the effect of the opioid epidemic and strategies to address it.

But Bellony disputes the claim that neighbourhoods with supervised consumption sites experience higher crime rates.

“Some of the things that [the ministry is] saying in terms of crime being up in neighborhoods with safe consumption sites — that’s not necessarily true,” she said.

In response to requests for information about the city’s crime rates, Nadine Ramadan, a senior communications advisor for the Toronto Police Service, directed Canadian Affairs to the service’s crime rate portal.

The portal shows assaults, break-and-enters and robberies in the West Queen West neighborhood have remained relatively stable since the Queen West supervised consumption site opened in 2018.

In contrast, crime rates are higher in some nearby neighbourhoods without supervised consumption sites, such as The Junction.

“While I can’t speak to perceptions about a rise in crime specifically around supervised consumption sites, I can tell you that violent crime is increasing across the GTA,” Ramadan told Canadian Affairs. She referred questions about Jones’ statements about crime data to the health minister’s office.

Jones’ office did not respond to multiple follow-up inquiries.

Mixed feelings

In July, Canadian Affairs reported that business owners in the West Queen West neighbourhood were grappling with a surge in drug-related crime.

Rob Sysak, executive director of the West Queen West Business Improvement Association, says there are mixed feelings about their neighbourhood’s site ceasing to offer safe consumption services.

“I’m not saying [the closure] is a positive or negative decision, because we won’t know until after a while,” said Sysak, whose association works to promote business in the area.

Sysak says he has heard concerns from business owners that needles previously used by individuals at the site may now end up on the street.

Bellony supports the concept of HART Hubs offering addiction and support services. But she says she finds the province’s plan for the hubs to be unclear and unrealistic.

“It seems very much like they kind of skipped forward to the ideal situation at the end,” she said. “But all the steps that it takes to get there … are unaddressed.”


This article was produced through the Breaking Needles Fellowship Program, which provided a grant to Canadian Affairs, a digital media outlet, to fund journalism exploring addiction and crime in Canada. Articles produced through the Fellowship are co-published by Break The Needle and Canadian Affairs.

 

Our content is always free – but if you want to help us commission more high-quality journalism, consider getting a voluntary paid subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X