this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2025
1092 points (97.7% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
8019 readers
405 users here now
Rules:
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
- Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
- If the reason your post meets Rule 1 isn't in the source, you must add a source in the post body (not the comments) to explain this.
- Posts should use high-quality sources, and posts about an article should have the same headline as that article. You may edit your post if the source changes the headline. For a rough idea, check out this list.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
- Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal.
- This is not exclusively a US politics community. You're encouraged to post stories about anyone from any place in the world at any point in history as long as you meet the other rules.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, they didn't. The medical facility didn't blame trump, the article didn't blame trump, and there's no proof that any of the citizens blame trump.
This is actually what the article says:
And then, later in the article it mentions how there's supposedly $50 billion coming from the feds to assist rural providers, and how disappointing it is that they've made this decision before the federal aid has been finalized.
This is being portrayed as a business decision to close this town's only healthcare facility. Anyone reading the article would have to believe that trump has anything to do with inflation or cutting funding, and a community that has over 85% of their people voting for trump doesn't believe that.
"Something is eating my face but it's definitely not the leopard I voted for, it's all business as usual!"
"excuse me i voted for leopards in bowties and i clearly see no bowtie on the leopard eating my face"
Kinda pathetic reflection of the community, that the post you're commenting on is one of the highest-ranked on Lemmy right now but no comment like yours is near the top of the comments
There's a reason hospitals get bigger and bigger. Economics drive scale and communities that cannot drive scale will fall behind regardless what the government does.
And that is precisely why we have a government that provides essential services. We don't want a government that runs like a business that runs like what you just talked about.
This is incredibly obvious if you ask what the most efficient government setup would be. Quite clearly, the most efficient setup is to not exist at all, because then there's no overhead. And of course you provide no services but it comes at no expense... That's what you were driving at, but I think almost no voters in the US actually agree with your stance. But they might describe things just like you did perhaps unaware that they are fooling themselves or others or both.
This is a product of healthcare being treated as a for-profit endeavour. Small healthcare facilities shouldn't need to be profitable (neither should large ones, but as you highlight, economics of scale means that larger facilities do better financially).
The government does have the power to change this, but it would require recalibrating to recognise healthcare as a basic human right
Every rural community is a temporarily embarassed metropolis.
No, it's these equity firms buying up hospitals, giving loans to themselves, and then bankrupting them.
Which ones that were bought by private equity ended-up going bankrupt? Do you have specific examples?