Muda69

https://mises.org/wire/why-one-corporation-can-dictate-measles-policy-america In other words, if patients are given choices, lobbyists theorized some of them might receive only partial vaccinations, based on individual assessments of risk. Thus, the AAP has opted to reduce choices — and reduce opportunities to evaluate risk — and embrace an all-or-nothing plan designed to force patients into adopting a certain vaccination schedule. The general idea being pushed here is that doctors only have access to patients intermittently. Thus, in order to increase "efficiency" in vaccines, the ideal is to pack as many immunizations into a single doctor visit as possible. Faced with a choice of the composite vaccine or nothing, some people have opted for nothing. This is not surprising since their preferred option has been removed from the menu of choices. The result has likely been fewer measles vaccinations among those who dislike the composite vaccine. Lobbyists deliberately pushed for the removal of a non-coercive option that could have been used to vaccinate more people. Not surprisingly, many of those same people are now pushing for explicitly coercive laws to force the use of a specific vaccine preferred by a single huge pharmaceutical company. Merck's Government-Created Monopoly But why should patients be only able to access treatments provided by a single corporation? In a functioning marketplace — which the US pharmaceutical industry certainly is not — it is highly unlikely this sort of power would be enjoyed by a single firm. In a functioning marketplace, if there is a demand for other types of vaccines, it is likely other companies would step in to provide those services. Competition could be offered by new startups, or by foreign firms entering the marketplace. Unfortunately, we find the US government makes this sort of competition extraordinarily difficult. In Financing Vaccines in the 21st Century: Assuring Access and Availability, (published by the National Academies Press) the authors note the plethora of barriers to entry that preclude the entrance of other firms into the vaccine market. Some of these are market-based. The cost of producing and delivering vaccines is costly in terms of fixed costs. But many of these costs are government created as well. In an examination of how government-created limitations on vaccine production has led to bottlenecks and fragility in vaccine distribution, the authors write: Defenders of the status quo insist that regulations are necessary to ensure public safety, but experience suggests "the impact of regulation has been costly, without clear evidence of corresponding improvements in quality." The effect has been to cut off patients and parents from options that might have been available without government policy artificially raising costs to so high an extent. Particularly illustrative is the fact that American consumers do not have the option of accessing foreign vaccines that have already been in wide usage outside the US. This is especially relevant to the case of the MMR since the Japanese manufacturer Takeda Pharmaceutical company already produces an alternative composite vaccine containing only measles and rubella antigens. (It was specifically produced to provide an alternative to the MMR which some Japanese researches contended led to too many adverse reactions.) Moreover, at least as late as 2007, a single-antigen measles vaccine in the UK was "obtainable on a private basis" (i.e., not through the National Health Service) at least partially through imported vaccines. These options have been essentially abolished by government regulation in the US.3 Moreover, many medical professionals appear happy to embrace and push these monopolies, since monopoly power can be easily used to force certain politically-popular composite vaccines. Monopolists like Merck are happy to play along since this can help increase revenues by simultaneously reducing administrative costs and marketing only costlier composite vaccines.4 The end result is an excellent illustration of how partnerships between government regulators and private companies can be used to reduce consumer choices, and even, ultimately, to push coercive medical policies which mandate acceptance of what few choices remain. More crony capitalism. As one of the comments to Mr. McMaken's article states:

What Bernie Sanders Gets Wrong About Capitalism: https://reason.com/2019/05/01/what-bernie-sanders-gets-wrong-about-capitalism/

I'm concerned because the lower margins won't be caused by free market competition, but due to an effective government takeover of the system. The ends don't justify the means.

Nothing wrong with these bathing dresses, if women want to wear them:

Thank you for the succinct explanation. So Mr. Sanders's plan is to effectively destroy the private market segment of health care. How many hospitals, surgery centers, etc. would be forced to close? Are there currently hospitals that only serve Medicare or Medicaid recipients?

Please elaborate.

Was "The Long Night" too dark to see? That's on you, says Game Of Thrones cinematographer: https://news.avclub.com/was-game-of-thrones-the-long-night-too-dark-to-see-t-1834416256

So could they still earn sufficient revenues to stay in business should those revenues fall by as much at 40%?: FTA: But not Las Vegas?

The Economics of Tyranny in Venezuela. Hayek predicted it all 75 years ago: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/venezuela-tyranny-economic-collapse-predictable/

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/30/718584269/juan-guaid-calls-for-a-military-uprising-declares-final-phase-in-venezuela The end result of socialism.

The Jones Act is protecting U.S. shipyards to death: https://www.philly.com/opinion/commentary/philly-shipyard-jones-act-20190425.html

So currently the only source of income for these health care companies is Medicare and Medicaid? And Mr. Sanders seems to be pretty clear that he wants to effectively wipe out an entire facet of the insurance industry. FTA:

I can't view your link at my current location, but based on it's name I take it you don't agree with these statements from the linked article?:

America should not have to import natural gas.: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/jones-act-should-be-waived-natural-gas-abundance/

But can those private companies still make a profit if Mr. Sanders version of single-payer comes to fruition?

For Five Bucks More Than a Nissan Leaf, You Can Get a Hellephant Instead: https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2019/04/for-five-bucks-more-than-a-nissan-leaf-you-can-get-a-hellephant-instead/ Probably work great in a Chevy Bolt.

*yawn*

How would a progressive socialist "Medicare-for-all" system personally affect your current position in the health care industry?

Citing Smollett, Cook County judge slams Kim Foxx's office on double standard: https://www.foxnews.com/us/smollett-cook-county-kim-foxx-double-standard

1. Good to know. 2. Is willingly polluting a river, lake, the atmosphere, etc. an immoral act? 3. How many EV charging stations are there in Tiny Argos? https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2018/05/15/are-electric-cars-worse-for-the-environment-000660

Government Spending on Colleges in the US Is Higher than in the Countries with "Free" College: https://mises.org/wire/government-spending-colleges-us-higher-countries-free-college This helps keep costs down. As Marketplace reported back in 2015, "Students in Germany ... tend to stay local, so there aren't any dorms. There are no active student clubs, or big football stadium. And every lecture hall looks huge ... All of this translates to savings..." (For more on how "free" European colleges economize, see "'Free College' Comes at a Price." But it's not just physical amenities like dorms. Ripley adds: Oddly, Ripley tries to argue colleges spend too much on amenities because they too market oriented and compete for students with other colleges. But, if this were true, why do colleges only compete in terms of adding ever-more opulent services and facilities? Couldn't they also attract more students by lowering prices? The fact is colleges don't compete on prices because, thanks to subsidized student loans, potential students aren't nearly as price sensitive as they would otherwise be. In a functioning marketplace, highly-priced luxury colleges would lose students to more meat-and-potatoes schools. The result would be declining enrollment at the more expensive schools. But, with so many student-loan dollars available, students can more easily justify — in their minds — taking on debt so they can go to a school with all those amenities Ripley lists. Regardless of the details of what exactly is being bought at an American college, the fact remains that students aren't going into debt or finding college "unaffordable" because governments in the US spend so little on higher education. On the contrary, they spend very large amounts of money on higher education through programs that include direct subsidies to schools, and grants to both students and schools. As with health care in the US — a sector in which US government spending per capita outpaces most other countries, the facts simply don't support the idea that "too little government spending" is the cause of high prices. Indeed, if government agencies in the US really wanted to make an education more affordable, they'd be slashing the "diversity" staff, getting rid of their on-campus housing and dining halls, and privatizing all athletic programs. The college administrators, of course, would complain that without all the extras, they'll be unable to attract as many students — who bring with them their precious student loans. This would nonetheless be a boon to the more clever students who are more interested in an education than a four-to-six-year summer camp.

Why do you hate the maximizing of profits, Night Hawk? And isn't harming the environment in the pursuit of "maximum profits" a morally evil act? Also, how many zero emission vehicles to you personally currently own and drive? https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/a22263/what-is-pzev/

What a fantastic phone application: