Good morning and Happy Sunday! Here were my top five favorite political cartoons for the week. Be sure to vote for your fav in the poll at the bottom of this post!
by Signe Wilkinson at GoComics.com…
by Dana Summers at GoComics.com…
by Henry Payne at Townhall.com…
by Glenn Foden at Townhall.com…
by Gary McCoy at Townhall.com…
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I have to go with #3 because of it’s national implications although #1 makes a good point.
The fourth one is pretty disappointing because I feel that we’ve got some well documented information, put forth by the CBO, slandered by media and folks that aren’t actually reading the information in there, and making deductions for political reasons and not for family reasons.
The CBO says that the reduction in jobs (and it is the equivalent of 2 million jobs – not 2 million actual jobs – two different things) is a voluntary thing, and results from two different things – the first is marginal tax issues – that some people might work less hours for bigger assistance. Is that an issue? Probably – but we’ve always had progressive taxation in this country and I don’t think has kept to many people from saying they want to do as much as they can in life.
The bigger one though is people who have been in ‘job lock’. People who have stayed at their job simply for the insurance. They might want to stay home with kids. They might want to retire early. They might want to start their own business. But they’ve been locked into a job without alternative good insurance options. Health care reform does that - it gives other options for these people.
Now, the question for my conservative friends (though most on this board just want to complain and don’t actually know what they support when it comes to health care reform) – the cbo is essentially stating that within the new world of health care, there are more options that will increase freedom for folks – folks that have kids, want to start a business, retire early…is this a bad thing?
Okay, I have to vote for #2 because those raccoons are so cute.
Ex-GOP,
Nancy Pelosi would like her rose-colored glasses back now.
Ex-GOP says:
February 16, 2014 at 10:33 am
The bigger one though is people who have been in ‘job lock’. People who have stayed at their job simply for the insurance. They might want to stay home with kids. They might want to retire early. They might want to start their own business. But they’ve been locked into a job without alternative good insurance options. Health care reform does that - it gives other options for these people.
Thank you for pointing this out.
I quit paying attention to the healthcare mess. It’s too late to avoid the train wreck…. all that is left is to watch it unfold.
However, that does not mean that a few good things might come from the ACA. And this hope that we we might not be so shackled as wage slaves by the cost of healthcare insurance is a bit of hope.
If a family can escape wage-slavery and start an independent business — that is always good. If the ACA provides affordable health insurance options, that could help.
But it remains to be demonstrated, that affordable insurance will be available. I won’t believe it until I see it.
I agree Ex-GOP. Cartoons aren’t actually funny when they are just plain wrong.
No. 1 for me, the rest are just plain pathetic.
The first one reminds me of an argument I had with someone where she claimed Shirley Temple was racist because she was in a movie where someone wore blackface, and her movies had racist themes. In the thirties. When she was, like, eight years old or something. I’d never heard of anything so ridiculous, blaming a child for being in a racist movie in a time period where that was considered acceptable by the dominant culture and how would she know any different at that age? And she became the ambassador to like Ghana or something like that so I don’t think there’s evidence she was a racist adult. Anyway, RIP to her, she was an adorable little kid.
“If a family can escape wage-slavery and start an independent business — that is always good. If the ACA provides affordable health insurance options, that could help.”
It’s really encouraging to me that you can see, as much as you disagree with it, that the ACA could have some positive effects on at least some people. I’m happy that I have insurance now, it’s a load off my back because I don’t have to worry about being put into thousands more dollars of debt if I get ill, and that’s partially due to the ACA as well (the company I work for is pretty small, and the only reason they are able to offer decent comprehensive plans is because they are applying to get the employer subsidies and such, is the way that I understand it). I think there are valid criticisms of the ACA (I would rather see single payer), but I am glad you can look past the rhetoric and see that it’s not 100% bad in every case. It’s admirable to think past party lines and propaganda.
Jobs offering health care as a part of compensation s a good thing, that is unless you are a left-wing nut job.
Individuals who are self-employed should be able to purchase any health insurance coverage they choose without government interference; unless you are a left wing statist nut job.
I would much rather jobs not be tied to healthcare. If I lost my job somehow, like if there was a layoff or something, I would yet again be without health insurance and not have access to healthcare, with no guarantee of finding another job that provides me health insurance. I realize stuff like COBRA was supposed to help with this, but the issue of tying healthcare to employment is bigger than that. There’s also the controversy of employers feeling forced to provide insurance that covers things they are morally opposed to. Among other things.
Single payer would fix that part, as well as setting lower costs and getting better overall outcomes. Single payer all the way.
truth -
I guess you are done with the other thread. Good call by you.
Consumer reports calls mini-med plans “junk insurance”. Are you saying you believe those should be available for purchase without government interference?
What’s wrong with regulations anyway – I bet I could name 20 regulations pretty quickly that 95% of Americans with any brain would support. Why not have regulations for one of the most important components of life – one’s health? Or do you think that companies should be able to rip people off if they can think of a good enough scheme?
“What’s wrong with regulations anyway – I bet I could name 20 regulations pretty quickly that 95% of Americans with any brain would support. Why not have regulations for one of the most important components of life – one’s health? Or do you think that companies should be able to rip people off if they can think of a good enough scheme? ”
Silly Ex, the free market will take care of any issues. Just like the meat packing industry cleaned itself right up with no government interference or social outcry, and just like businesses randomly decided to not use child labor and gave employees fair wages and working hours. I don’t know why you deny that the free market system is always perfect and intervention is never necessary, the evidence is all around you.
No, Jack. Single-payer is not the way.
http://catosdomain.com/?p=5714
Hans I’d actually be okay with a system similar to Switzerland’s or single payer. Either is okay with me if people all have access to coverage, costs are kept down and don’t bankrupt the country or individuals, and outcomes are comparable to countries that have the best (which are mostly all single payer systems).
Problem is none of the current crop of the GOP have advanced any free market solutions that solve the issues, they are almost entirely reactionary to anything that liberals advance. Apparently status quo and making things worse (like moving Medicare to an exchange system) are good ideas. Whatever.
“Why health insurance is considered “different” by progressives … why individuals are competent to buy all of these other policies but not health coverage for instance … why health insurance is in a category alone and separate from all other kinds of insurances has always been a mystery.”
This is from your link, Hans. Seriously? Healthcare IS different from all other insurances, because anyone in the entire US can become a massive liability at any time, unlike stuff like house, rental, car, and life insurance. You don’t have to buy a car, and not insuring your house or your apartment stuff may be stupid but it’s not going to bankrupt everyone else if you have an adverse event. And life insurance is a good idea but not a necessity. Health, on the other hand, affects the entire country. You can forgo health insurance, but if you get cancer and need very expensive treatments, it costs everyone else a ton of money and results in higher prices for everyone, if we’re not willing to let people who can’t pay die. It’s not complicated to see why health insurance is different, and I’m tired of this complaint.
And anyway, car insurance is regulated. Car insurance has minimum levels in all but a couple states that you must have in order to drive.
Hi Jack,
I pointed out in a previous post that when people view any health care service as “free”, it will be abused. With abuse comes the increase in cost. I saw this time and again working the ER. If you want to keep costs within reason, some of it may well have to come out of our pockets. Our city had to start charging for rescue squad services because people so badly abused what they saw as a “free” rescue service. The abuses rapidly decreased. Also, people did not visit the ER because they didn’t have a doctor, it was because they say no expenses out of their own pockets. It was “free”, i.e. someone else was footing the bill, whether it was medicare, insurance, or Medicaid.
We have to pay for food, utilities, and shelter don’t we? Why is it so unreasonable that some health care expenses come out of our own pockets?
I have often pointed out the situation of the local doctor who offered free prenatal care to a low income community. Not one woman came in. Sometimes people’s priorities are not what we assume.
Oh and you’re right about Shirley Temple. It was the enlightened of Hollywood who relegated black actors to the servant’s entrance. Shirley became an ambassador to the African country of Ghana. Strange place for a racist, wouldn’t you agree?
Healthcare IS different from all other insurances, because anyone in the entire US can become a massive liability at any time.
Not to mention the inherent conflict of interest between the insurer and the consumer. If you’re building a house and it runs over budget, your contractor can pass the cost on to you. When you’re costing your health insurer money, all they can do is try to lower the quality and quantity of the care you get. This is why the unregulated free market will never result in the supply of health insurance rising to meet the demand for it.
Sarah Palin bleating about “government death panels” was the best thing that happened to the insurance company in a decade. Somebody got a huge kickback for that one.
LisaC,
The insurance company will also pass the cost on to the customer by making the customer pay higher premiums or will reduce services. This is what happens when people sue insurance companies for tripping over their own feet or when juries think insurance companies are bottomless pits of money.
Its also what happens when people abuse what they consider to be ”free” services, as I mentioned in my 8:29PM post to Jack. The only thing “free” means is someone else is footing the bill.
Nations with universal healthcare spend a significantly lower percentage of GDP on public and private health expenditure. Including the provision of health services (preventive and curative), family planning activities, nutrition activities, and emergency aid designated for health.
Do they spend lower because they have citizens on a budget? There are x number of dollars and those are the only services that will be provided? Do all pregnant women get ultrasounds, epidurals, and do these countries have a high number of c sections? Personally I think we have way too much medical interference in normal pregnancy and this creates more problems than it solves.
Also, do citizens see specialists when they want or when their names come up on waiting lists? How about surgical procedures?
Also, are citizens expected to take more responsibility for their health? As I mentioned in my post to Jack the women who were offered prenatal care did not come in. What can you do for people who’s priority is not their health?
Mary, all the complaints and assumptions about people taking advantage of “free” (tax paid, which everyone in the UK and Canada KNOWS is tax paid and not free) services don’t mean much, because it’s been shown that healthcare is cheaper and has better outcomes in universal healthcare countries.
“Do they spend lower because they have citizens on a budget? There are x number of dollars and those are the only services that will be provided? Do all pregnant women get ultrasounds, epidurals, and do these countries have a high number of c sections? Personally I think we have way too much medical interference in normal pregnancy and this creates more problems than it solves.”
The UK has a better maternal mortality rate, a better infant mortality rate, and less interventions during labor than the US. Similar for Australia and Germany, etc. It’s really undeniable that our healthcare system does not have as good outcomes as countries with universal systems in place.
“Also, do citizens see specialists when they want or when their names come up on waiting lists? How about surgical procedures?”
Waiting lists unless you’re rich. Which is, basically, exactly what happens here except we have millions of people who never get to see a specialist because they are broke and uninsured. And they die, a lot of times, because they can’t see a specialist. Life expectancy is higher in single payer countries.
“What can you do for people who’s priority is not their health?”
Treat them anyway, and with a single payer system that offsets costs so it doesn’t bankrupt us. Or let them die. Those are the choices there. The third options is the one we’ve had, where people get treated and then skip their massive bills, jacking up healthcare costs for everyone.
Another thing Reality,
Are citizens in these countries as lawsuit happy as people here? Do doctors have to administer every test and perform C-sections, more to protect themselves from court action than to actually benefit the patient?
As tragic as a birth defect is, there was a time when this was simply accepted. It happened. It was heartbreaking. But no one was sued. Now its a different story. Do the OBs in these countries with universal health care have to perform every imaginable test to protect themselves?
when people view any health care service as “free”, it will be abused - the local doctor who offered free prenatal care to a low income community. Not one woman came in. – so is there ‘abuse’ or not?
There’s a whole lot more to a nations healthare than just pregnancies. And what have we been told about comparative maternal mortality rates? Lower where there is universal healthcare. Most with universal healthcare also have lower coronary heart disease death rates.
If other nations spent as large a proportion of their GDP on healthcare their populations would be nigh on immortal.
Jack,
Yes it does make a difference. Why is there less intervention? Is it because doctors don’t worry about lawsuits? BTW, I don’t think less intervention is a bad thing but unfortunately, a perfect outcome is always expected and unless he wants to end up in court, and pay much higher insurance premiums, it better be shown the doctor did everything to “guarantee” this. BTW, who do you think the higher premium costs are passed on to?
Also, the abuses I’m discussing occur here. People take advantage of what they perceive as free because I have watched them do it for years. They may not have this option in countries where there is universal care because it won’t be permitted.
Please Jack, for over 40 years I have seen uninsured, medicare, and Medicaid people seeing specialists. This includes general and vascular surgeons, oncologists, orthopedics, OB/GYN, cardiologists, you name it, and they still are. The plastic surgeons in our town, certainly specialists, aren’t going hungry and their costs are mostly NOT covered by insurance. A friend of my daughter’s who is on Medicaid, the one with 4 kids by 3 different fathers all paid for by Medicaid, will be having surgery to remove clots from somewhere inside her head. The MRI picked it up, she will have a specialist operate. Yes, poor people do get the care they need. No waiting list.
Waiting lists unless you’re rich? How interesting. So there is a two tier system of care in these “universal care” countries. I thought “universal care” was the great equalizer.
Sorry Jack but how do you treat people who don’t care enough to take care of themselves or get any kind of preventive or medical care? As the doctor who offered the free prenatal care said: “I can’t hog tie these women and drag them in”. These ladies however had no trouble finding and paying the local drug dealers, finding the liquor store, and the closest McDonald drive thru. The doctor’s words, not mine.
Reality,
I pointed out that people abused “free” emergency room services for convenience, not because they didn’t have doctors. I would say a good 98% of them did. These visits were considerably more expensive but what did they care? They were “free”.
The example of the pregnant ladies is that people do not always take the responsibility to get health care, so what do you do then? Hog tie and drag them in?
I’ve already told you I agree that there is too much intervention in pregnancy but I have also told you why.
Lower coronary heart disease rates may be as related to life style as to medical treatment. Again, less intervention may be better.
You didn’t answer my question. Do these doctors in “universal care” countries, which apparently is two tiered, have to fear lawsuits if they don’t utilize every type of medical intervention?
Mary, I simply can argue with anecdotes when the evidence doesn’t support them.
45,000 people die yearly in the US because they lack access to preventative care and being uninsured. Don’t tell me how everyone has access to care because it’s simply not true. Medicaid didn’t apply to any but the most destitute until the ACA, where do you think uninsured people came from? People have better outcomes across the board in countries with universal healthcare. It’s not even up for debate. I can’t go back and forth on anecdotes that contradict the actual evidence.
“Waiting lists unless you’re rich? How interesting. So there is a two tier system of care in these “universal care” countries. I thought “universal care” was the great equalizer.”
Rich people get better care EVERYWHERE in every industry. That’s just life. What I’m concerned about is that the lowest common denominator get care too. I don’t care if wealthy people buy private plans and get luxuries, I’m concerned about people who don’t have that option. And I would like us to stop paying double what the other countries pay for worse healthcare, and stop slowly bankrupting the country.
It’s still contradictory to claim that people ‘abuse’ free health services while telling us that poeple did not avail themselves of a free health service.
The cost v outcomes in nations with universal healthcare would indicate that there isn’t enough ‘abuse’ to have a negative impact.
You can dig and scrape and poke and attempt to muddy the waters all you want but there is no denying that universal healthcare systems deliver better outcomes at a lower cost. The data tells us so.
Reality,
Don’t be absurd. Its not contradictory at all. Its called human nature. You see plenty of it in 40+ years. You see people who think they are owed “free” care yet have plenty of money to pay the drug dealer. You see people who flat out don’t care about their health or the conditions they or their children live in. You see people using the rescue squad as a personal taxi service or hauling all their kids into ER for “free” treatments for head colds. You see millions shelled out by idiotic juries for equally idiotic claims. You see people badly abuse their health then expect miraculous repairs.
What you are overlooking Reality is the various factors at work here. You think there is some panacea. When the gov’t puts citizens on a budget they may simply be denied care they need or go undiagnosed. Why is euthanasia becoming more popular in some of these countries, especially by the medical profession? You still haven’t told me if doctors have to concern themselves with lawsuits.
There are also cultural factors. People may be more physically active and have better dietary habits. There may not be the crime and violence. There may not be the automobile usage and resulting traumas.
There may be no abuse because it isn’t allowed. Like the situation with the city rescue squad, the abuse stopped when the city put their foot down and stopped providing a “free” service. If the gov’t health service tells you no dice, you canNOT go to the ER for reasons we deem trivial, and the staff won’t see you, then you won’t go. If they tell you no surgery or cancer treatment, you don’t get it. Bingo, we save on costs.
Or else you do what the Canadian gov’t did, which was to contract with American border hospitals to provide specialized care to their citizens. Or you do what my aunt’s physical therapist did, use your medical connections in the U.S. to bring your cancer stricken father to an American hospital for treatment. Otherwise he will sit on a waiting list in Canada for 6 months.
Hi Jack,
Anecdotes? No, I’m giving you a first person reality check. You go by numbers and stats, I tell you the human side. Only OB/GYNs deliver at our hospitals. Poor women have access to them. People get the necessary reconstructive surgery they need from our plastic surgeons. They are middle and working class, they are poor. When traumas and heart attack victims came into the hospital ER, we didn’t ask who was paying. Hospitals ate a lot of costs.
Like Reality you think there is a panacea. There isn’t. What we have are various factors that neither of you take into consideration. I knew any number of doctors who were trying to get away from the insurance and let patients pay direct, saving money for both patient and insurance company. The need to curb costs led to more outpatient care and improved surgical techniques. Now in steps the gov’t and creates what the gov’t does best, a cluster%$^#. And these are the people you want running health care?
Am I arguing our system is perfect? Far from it. If I had my way a lot would change. What I am telling you is there is no panacea, no magic solution. The grass only looks greener.
Again, about the rich. I’m glad you bring this up. Universal care is no great equalizer. Those who can’t afford will go without. You probably heard of that Canadian legislator or gov’t official who had to make arrangements to go to California for treatment of her advanced breast cancer. Lucky for her she had money and connections. I have no idea what the average Canadian woman does when faced with the same situation. If she lives in my community, there are a number of excellent breast and reconstructive surgeons who treat women of all economic levels.
Not everyone lives in your community, Mary. Most of us live in a world where doctors are less selfless and the poor are less contemptible.
Your shtick about mooching Medicaid patients doesn’t have much bearing on a debate about health insurance, except insofar as illustrates the need for broad insurance coverage. Insurance companies are free to, and do, charge copays for ER visits. My insurance company won’t pay one red cent for an ambulance if it turns out that whatever sent you to the ER wasn’t actually an emergency. If you’re so upset about substance-abusing slatterns expecting free care, the logical thing to do would be to want them to have insurance so that they will have to share in the costs.
Scapegoating juries also isn’t an actual solution. A number of states in the US limit malpractice damages. The cost of health care has not significantly decreased as a result.
Edited to add that of course I’m not saying that health insurance is a panacea. There is no panacea to the cost of health care. That doesn’t mean that health care delivery can’t be improved.
Mary, that’s like the definition of an anecdote. I have plenty of “real life” stuff I could complain about that illustrate my viewpoint, but all that would happen is we’d go back on forth on who has the most tragic stories about healthcare in the US lol. That’s why actual facts are important, and the facts show that having everyone insured is the way to go.
LisaC,
I have spent my life in various communities, including major cities, where the poor, including my alcoholic grandmother, received outstanding care at city hospitals that served mainly the indigent and gunshot and stabbing victims. I have lived in a world of real people and issues, not statistics.
I said nothing about mooching LisaC. I pointed out that people were getting the care they needed and I stated no objections to this. I also pointed out that insured people weren’t loathe to abuse what they perceived as free care. Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth.
You’re surprised the insurance won’t pay the ambulance for a non emergency? I’m not. Why should they? As I have pointed out people have treated rescue services like a taxi service and our city finally had to put its foot down. Ambulances are for emergencies.
I scapegoat ignorant juries and juries who are ruled by emotion. Awarding a drunken moron 12 million bucks for being stupid enough to dive off a picnic table onto a child’s slip and slide is my idea of a collection of dimwits. BTW LisaC, just who do you think the insurance company passed these costs onto? Bingo.
I agree wholeheartedly our health care system can be improved. I heard a discussion today about letting the states run health care, be it medicare, Medicaid, single payer or free markets. Let the states decided the needs of their citizens and what best serves them and what system works best for them, and leave the freaking feds out of it. I think its brilliant and I hope it goes through.
Hi Jack,
You can call it what you darned well want, I call it observing real life. Its like the difference between looking at crime stats and talking to the cop on the beat. Its the difference between reading statistics on abuse and talking to you, who’s perspective, experience, and knowledge I greatly respect, BTW.
I wholeheartedly support everyone having some kind of insurance, or medical savings account. I posted to LisaC about a discussion I heard today that I think is brilliant. Does one state want single payer? Go for it. Does another want free markets and competition? Go for it. Let the states decide what works best for their own citizens and keep the feds out of it.
Jack,
Second-hand or even third-hand information can only be called anecdotal if you don’t trust the sources. I trust Mary, and she trusts the doctor she mentioned, so that’s as close as you can get to fact unless you only accept what you see with your own eyes.
“You can call it what you darned well want, I call it observing real life. Its like the difference between looking at crime stats and talking to the cop on the beat. Its the difference between reading statistics on abuse and talking to you, who’s perspective, experience, and knowledge I greatly respect, BTW. ”
It’s just literally the definition of people’s personal stories! Anecdotal. It’s not a value judgment on the worth of the information. I think speaking to people who have actual experience with things is valuable, but the fact remains that everyone has their own interpretations and experiences, so hard data is a way to look at an issue in a more whole, unbiased way. Lol if I used my life as a barometric for reality I would have to assume 90% of people are drug addicts and most parents are terribly abusive, but that’s not reality is it? You see what I mean that anecdotes don’t tell the story and aren’t a good way to make policy.
Mary – the root problem you seem to be saying is too many people are consuming health care services. Thus, the two solutions would be either more medical personnel, or ration care. And you seem to be leaning towards rationing care – is that correct? Or have I missed something?
EGV,
You’ve missed something….again.
Hi Jack,
As always I respect your opinion but we will have to agree to disagree on this.
Data and “facts” have some value to a point, but nothing has aggravated me more, or more often been proven wrong, then the pencil pushers who don’t see the human factor behind their “facts” and figures and what should work and what doesn’t.
Mary – okay – just reread the post that you have no actual solution – just pointing things out.
I’ll then reiterate what was said earlier – I think by Jack. The majority of countries under universal healthcare pay way, way less than we do for their services, and get better results. People can surely find some faults in those systems – but if I told anybody we paid twice what they paid, I would argue that the system that costs twice as much better be faultless – and we’re not – again, on darn near every measurable outcome, we lag the rest of the world. If that isn’t the evidence that a person needs, I don’t know what would be.
“Yes, I’d like to pay more money and get worse results”
“Why?”
“Oh, I read some study that people who need new hips have to wait a little longer.”
“So then you’re okay having more people die, having your own waits and people who don’t get services, and you’re willing to pay double for a system that’s worse?”
That seems to be the argument I’m seeing – which is weird.
Mary – but disagree with Jack on what? You seem to not be advocating for anything.
EGV,
I have already commented on the issues you raise in previous posts so please reread.
Ex-RINO, you live in a fansasyland. In Canada people get diagnosed with cancer and wait months just to see a specialist and start chemotherapy. You are a loon.
“In Canada people get diagnosed with cancer and wait months just to see a specialist and start chemotherapy. You are a loon.”
All the Canadians are dead. DEEAAADDD!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2nyNomnAL8
Lol. Truthseeker if chemotherapy and other specialist treatments are so difficult to get, why does Canada have better outcomes than us? Anyway, I’d rather us model Australia.
truth -
And you sir live in Fox News headlines and not in any sort of statistical reality.
What is interesting is when you actually look at cancer rates. US does do better, slightly, in some cancerns – but what is interesting is, our lead is only there (in certain treatable cancers) for those 65 and over. Those under 65, the US doesn’t do as well.
If you’re wondering, universal care – I mean, Medicare, kicks in at 65…
Furthermore, you yourself posted last week that not having insurance causes people to die. So somebody in Canada might have a wait (and sometimes waits are justified) – but you yourself have said that those who don’t have insurance are dying. So the finger you are pointing is really pointing right back at you.
Mary: when people view any health care service as “free”, it will be abused. With abuse comes the increase in cost. I saw this time and again working the ER. If you want to keep costs within reason, some of it may well have to come out of our pockets. Our city had to start charging for rescue squad services because people so badly abused what they saw as a “free” rescue service. The abuses rapidly decreased. Also, people did not visit the ER because they didn’t have a doctor, it was because they say no expenses out of their own pockets. It was “free”, i.e. someone else was footing the bill, whether it was medicare, insurance, or Medicaid.
Totally agree – it is human nature. There needs to be some incentive not to use the services.
https://www.cancercare.on.ca/cms/one.aspx?pageId=41089
http://imgur.com/QGJRpKb
http://imageshack.com/a/img138/2108/8cep.png
Hi Doug,
I think there needs to be an incentive not to abuse the services. If its not an emergency, call a cab and leave the rescue squad for someone truly in need. If its not an emergency, see your doctor and save the expense of an ER visit.
Hi Jack, 8:35PM
Luckily for the Canadians there are American border hospitals.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/06/alan-grayson-claims-45000-people-die-year-because-/
Mary – I think it’s clear that it is an unknown amount – more than thousands – less than millions. Where the number is, is an unknown.
What’s interesting is – you do make a good point about emergency care services – and the solutions would be more nurse lines, education – items such as that. I don’t think you can simply take what you’ve seen and apply it to all healthcare – especially when emergency care is something that is often times viewed as “free” by people who don’t have money. So I think your observations are solid, but they are solid in whatever health care system you have - and I find very little to suggest that you’d see abuses on other care – because how would somebody abuse preventative care? Go and get 10 mamograms a week? It doesn’t work that way.
Just my observation.
No EGV,
The article does an excellent of pointing out why these much quoted numbers cannot be confirmed or denied. Maybe people need to stop quoting them.
EGV, I certainly don’t think all people abuse health care services, I’m telling you what can and does happen when people perceive services as “free”. This can be insured people as well as the poorest Medicaid recipient. Human nature knows no boundaries.
The situations I was discussing didn’t involve preventative care. People didn’t come to the ER for that.
Mary -
Using common sense, we know people die because of lack of insurance – it’s pretty simple to argue – otherwise, what good is any preventative care? We all know there is value in catching something early and those without insurance don’t have things caught early. The number can’t be verified – but I suppose I can’t disagree with somebody trying to.
On abusing care – I find that the nurse hotlines have been wonderful for our family – there’s all sorts of times where we’ve been worried about something, but find out that nothing could be done for it anyway – so that can be a helpful component of the overall solution. I don’t know how they handle it in countries with universal care – something for me to look into…
Well EGV,
Maybe you can argue but that article points out you may not have much to back it up with. Why do we assume people without insurance don’t have things caught early? Can’t they have symptoms or possibly be very able to pay for testing out of pocket?
I’m pleased to hear nursing hotlines have served your family so well. I think they’re an outstanding idea and as you say, can put someone’s concerns to rest. Another excellent, and free, source of information is your pharmacist. He/she likely knows far more about drug interactions, reactions, safety, and proper dosaging than your doctor.
Mary –
Look at breast cancer survival rates around the world and you’ll understand the power of preventative care and health screenings. For instance, in Algeria, 2/3 of diagnosis happens in late stages, compared to in the US where screenings are readily available and education is pushed. Consequently, the survival rate in the US is much, much higher.
Those without insurance forego preventative care – they simply don’t get the screenings and preventative care that those with insurance do. There’s numerous studies out there on cancer survival rates and insurance coverage.
Hi EGV,
I’m not arguing against preventive care, I just don’t see where lack of insurance has to prevent people from getting it. There are colon/rectal cancer test kits you can buy at the drug store. People are continually advised how to protect their health. Who doesn’t know smoking has risks? I know two doctors who recently died of pancreatic cancer, symptom free until it was too advanced, and one only discovered it by default. Certainly they could afford preventative care.
I’ve heard mammograms are now being called into question, some calling them dangerous and useless, but that’s another debate!