Stanek Sunday funnies 5-12-13
Happy Mother’s Day!
Here were my top five favorite cartoons this week, beginning with a bittersweet Mother’s Day tribute to one of the Cleveland hostages’ moms, who passed away before knowing her daughter was alive. But Amanda Berry is indeed alive and now has her own daughter, Jocelyn, the clearly much loved child of her rapist. Don’t forget to vote for your favorite cartoon in the poll at the bottom of this post.
by Jeff Darcy at Cagle.com…
I haven’t been this offended by a liberal cartoon in a long time. But Steve Benson at GoComics.com has disgusted me, managing to tie abortion, contraceptive coverage(?!), and “no respect for rape victims” to a horrific story where one of three kidnap victims was beaten and starved until she miscarried five times. She certainly was given no “choice.” It is for this reason her captor may get the death penalty. But to abortion proponents, no story is unrelated to their sick blood lust…
I’ll be interested to read your take on South Carolina Republican Mark Sanford’s election to Congress. Here’s liberal Jim Morin’s take, at GoComics.com…
by Glenn Foden at Townhall.com…
by Jerry Holbert at Townhall.com…
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.
Come on, last year I thought we all learned there were no rape victims…just rape opportunities – because if it is legitimate rape, well, the body just shuts down!
Thanks GOP!
On a more serious note, I did enjoy the third one…I’d like to make a bumper sticker “I believe traditional marriage is between one man and one lady who I hung out with in South America on an affair when I told the nation I was hiking, and my real wife was at home”
So seriously, he gets to get married again, but gay people can’t?
The second one is pretty gross. People shouldn’t use other people’s personal tragedies to make political points the victims might not even agree with.
” On a more serious note, I did enjoy the third one…I’d like to make a bumper sticker “I believe traditional marriage is between one man and one lady who I hung out with in South America on an affair when I told the nation I was hiking, and my real wife was at home”
So seriously, he gets to get married again, but gay people can’t? ”
No, no, no, get it right. Traditional marriage is when you divorce your wife dying of cancer to marry your mistress, or you get married in Vegas and divorced a week later. It’s sacred.
Ex, didn’t you say one time that you were a Christian? I’m asking because the Word of God is crystal clear regarding God’s position on gay marriage and yet you seem confused.
I’m probably mistaken and you don’t actually profess faith in Christ.
The Bible is also very clear about divorce in pretty much all cases being wrong, but as a country we still allow that.
Yes Jack, as I understand it, divorce is wrong and God hates it. He has made exceptions for cases of infidelity because of the hardness of our hearts.
And yes, tragically, our country allows, meaning it’s legal, to do too many unethical things, like killing children in the womb.
Unless our nation repents and turns back to God and His ways, He will continue to bring correction by lifting His Hand of protection. The tremendous turmoil and violence we currently see in our society is a direct result of departing from His ways.
We are reaping what we’ve sown.
Gotta go see Mom!
Happy Mother’s Day Y’all!
EGV,
I have no doubt the reference to “legitimate rape” was that it is not a false claim, which like it or not, does happen. It does not confer any kind of legal status unto the act of rape. At worst a poor choice of words. BTW, didn’t Obama have Bill Clinton, who has been accused of exposing himself, sexual abuse, and rape, speak on his behalf on more than a few occasions, including the DNC national convention?
On Sanford, I’ll be honest I didn’t follow the race very closely but I thought that the GOP supported another candidate in the primary and made very minimal (if any) effort to support him in the race. if that is in fact the case, I guess replacing the Republican Party with the People of South Carolina would make that cartoon more accurate, right?
I think Benson and Foden offer interesting examples of the extremes. In today’s America if I do not support Plan B pills being handed out in middle school classrooms (I don’t) I am equated with someone keeping kidnapped women in my basement (I’m not). Can’t there be something in the middle? Is there no room for moderates in any political discussion anymore?
Ed – you are not mistaken, and you don’t need to be snide about it.
I am a Christian. Let me explain my stance on gay marriage.
If a person were simply to sit down with all the legal laws concerning marriage, they would come away with a clear definition of what marriage is in society – marriage is a contract between two people to manage ownership and tax rights. Simply put, in the eyes of the law, having a marriage partner helps define legal arrangements.
The Bible has a lot of clear definitions in regards to what marriage is – and not only marriage, but of adultery and divorce.
And in all of these areas, we pick and choose the legal implementation of these things. For instance, area you in favor of legislating adultery laws, especially in light of the Sermon on the Mount?
Or should we legislate all divorce laws?
Here is my position. I don’t believe marriage should be a government institution at all. At the government level, there should be a civil arrangement or designated person in regards to these ownership, tax, visitations – all these areas that need some definition.
And the church, which is Holy, should deal with what is Holy.
The biggest mistake of Christians was giving something that they see as Holy to the government, which we’ll all agree, isn’t a holy institution (and never has been). Once is got to the government level, we see all sorts of oddities of marriage, like drive through marriages, marriages to ensure citizenship, and Rush Limbaugh. Given the desire of many to have a government institution called marriage, I see no reason not to let any two people of legal adult age enter into that partnership – because again, at the government level, it is about legal matters.
And I think there’s a further lesson there. Should we have prayer mandated in public schools? If it were, how long until we have people who don’t respect religion leading prayers of all sorts of faith.
If we see something as holy, trying to have the government run with it and endorse it is simply bad news.
Mary -
Yes, poor choice of words.
And a lot of people have been accused of a lot of things – but the beauty of this country is that we have a legal system to deal with accusations and criminal matters.
Was Clinton ever convicted of raping somebody or committing sexual assault? A one word answer is fine.
EGV,
LOLLLL. You really think Bill Clinton would ever be convicted of anything? Another beauty of our country’s legal system is that money buys smart and expensive lawyers who can get you off the hook. Also political power provides one with goons to shut your accusers up. Political power also provides one with toadies who will do your dirty work, make excuses for you, and willingly overlook your trangressions so long as you scratch their backs.
Get real EGV.
BTW, Al Capone was convicted of income tax evasion. Other than not paying his taxes he was a model citizen, right?
So, your answer is no?
“Yes Jack, as I understand it, divorce is wrong and God hates it. He has made exceptions for cases of infidelity because of the hardness of our hearts.”
” Unless our nation repents and turns back to God and His ways, He will continue to bring correction by lifting His Hand of protection. The tremendous turmoil and violence we currently see in our society is a direct result of departing from His ways.”
I’ll just skip past the part when I complain about how it’s ridiculous the Bible allows divorce in cases of infidelity, but not abuse or the abuse of children, or abandonment as far as I know.
I just want to know when we were ever a good country that God protected. Was it when slavery was legal? Maybe when segregation and lynchings were the norm? I want to know when this golden time of US history happened.
Hi David MN,
I am no fan of Mark Sanford and view him only as the lesser of two evils. People were encouraged to write in Larry Grooms, who declined to be a write in candidate. That left Mark Sanford.
EGV,
My answer is that not being convicted doesn’t prove anything. I thought that was obvious.
BTW, do you think Capone being convicted only of income tax evastion proves he was otherwise a model citizen?
As I said EGV, get real. Money and power talk.
Wow – heck of an American answer there! “Guilty if the court of public opinion says so”
So, No?
EGV,
Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?
I respond to posts and questions as I see fit, not as instructed by you.
BTW, what is your answer concerning Capone?
Let me make it easy for you EGV. The fact people are not convicted of a certain crime may well mean they are innocent, or it can mean they have money, power, smart lawyers, and goons who know how to shut up accusers and make witnesses develop amnesia or disappear.
My answer to Capone is, once you clearly answer my question on Clinton, I’ll answer your question on Capone.
I’ve barely read your last few posts – just glanced for your answer (which has been non-existant).
EGV,
Well, if you read my posts you would have your answer.
No Bill Clinton wasn’t convicted. However he was impeached for obstruction of justice and perjury involving the Paula Jones lawsuit and agreed in an out of court settlement to pay $850,000 to her and her attorneys. I know EGV, innocent people routinely obstruct justice and perjure themselves and can afford colossol out of court settlements so as to “move on with their life”, or claim that their job is so ”unique” and demanding they can’t take the time for a civil lawsuit. So you see EGV, with power and money, its a little easier to avoid conviction. It also helps to have toadies to go after your accusers, you know someone like James Carville.
Let me help you with Capone, EGV. It was power, money, and goons that spared him any conviction for anything other than income tax evasion. Power,money, and goons also helped Bill Clinton. Its how the rich and powerful avoid conviction and why the lack of a conviction does little to convince me of innocence.
Thanks Mary – have a great day!
EGV,
Any time EGV, you too. It was my pleasure to clarify for you as to how the rich and powerful can far more easily avoid being convicted of a crime than well….you or me.
We permit so much wrong…..
It is, of course, wrong to cheat on one’s spouse. It is wrong to divorce a spouse and marry another. It is wrong for a culture to indulge in these things, failing to recognize that this is an epidemic disease.
It is impossible for two persons of the same sex to be married in the same manner as a natural couple of complementary-sexed persons.
It is wrong to use contraception. It is an epidemic disease of our culture that promotes contraception.
Rape is purely evil. So is abortion. We need to treat the victims of rape, both mother and child, with great love and charity and care.
The GOP cartoon is no more offensive than many of the so-called prolife cartoons posted here each week.
A Mother’s Day riddle.
I don’t respect life and support a Mother’s choice to kill her children but I celebrate Mother’s Day anyway. Who am I?
I agree with Jill Stanek. The Steve Benson cartoon is one of the most offensive I’ve ever seen.
I voted for it because it shows the hypocrisy of liberals who love to attack others (in this case the Republican Party), thus trying to move attention away from their own faults.
To me, the very making of this cartoon shows that Steve Benson has no respect for rape victims, which is just the accusation he tosses at the GOP. This is particularly disgusting in that he throws in “abortion rights”, considering how Castro (the Cleveland man charged with kidnapping, rape and murder), allegedly beat and starved at least one of his victims so that she aborted multiple times.
What a disgusting and evil way to try to attack those who disagree with him, draw attention to himself, score political correctness points, or just whatever it was Steve Benson was trying to do.
As Jack says, “People shouldn’t use other people’s personal tragedies to make political points the victims might not even agree with.”
Hey Ex,
Not sure what part of my remark you thought was snide…that was not my intention.
Any civil government can pick and choose what laws they implement. That wasn’t my question. My question is how you as a professing Christian can advocate homosexuality when God has clearly said in His Holy Word that it is against His will.
I don’t consider homosexuality any worse of a sin than the law of sin that I war against in my own flesh. We are all sinners. We all need a Savior. But we all need to work out out salvation with fear and trembling. I’m just curious what specifically would cause a professing Christian believe that God didn’t mean what He said.
Ed -
Where did I ever advocate homosexuality?
The post you took offense with was me questioning the sanctity of marriage argument when I’ve heard nobody offer a peep regarding Mark Sanford.
Do you think Mark Sanford should be allowed to get married again?
“I have no doubt the reference to “legitimate rape” was that it is not a false claim, which like it or not, does happen. It does not confer any kind of legal status unto the act of rape. At worst a poor choice of words.”
I didn’t see this one earlier. Like I’ve said fifteen billion times, the problem with what Akin said wasn’t because he poorly chose his words when trying to distinguish between real rapes and false rape accusations (which are rare anyway). It’s that he invented biological phenomena and implied that women don’t get pregnant from rape. That’s why it was offensive. The legitimate thing could have been explained away, if he hadn’t gone on with his “the female body has ways of shutting that thing down” crap. I think Amanda Berry might have an issue with his assumptions.
Hey Jack,
OK, I’ll skip that part about child abuse and abandonment as well (fortunate for me because I wouldn’t have a good answer for you.)
I’ve got to run but just quickly, I’d say before 9/11 our country enjoyed God’s providence and protection to a great degree. We had Pearl Harbor but perhaps we needed that provocation to get engaged in fighting the evil of that generation. And don’t think our nation didn’t pay a steep price for our sin of slavery in terms of bloodshed and American lives. Over 1,000,000 casualties and approx. 750,000 dead is a heavy toll. More in fact than all other US wars combined.
Yet not even equal to the number of babies we kill in the womb each year.
WE ARE A DEPRAVED NATION HEADED STRAIGHT FOR GOD’S JUDGMENTS.
” OK, I’ll skip that part about child abuse and abandonment as well (fortunate for me because I wouldn’t have a good answer for you.)”
:) No one will ever answer that for me, dunno why.
” I’ve got to run but just quickly, I’d say before 9/11 our country enjoyed God’s providence and protection to a great degree. We had Pearl Harbor but perhaps we needed that provocation to get engaged in fighting the evil of that generation. And don’t think our nation didn’t pay a steep price for our sin of slavery in terms of bloodshed and American lives. Over 1,000,000 casualties and approx. 750,000 dead is a heavy toll. More in fact than all other US wars combined.”
You say that we didn’t lose the protection until 9/11? So God didn’t care about three decades of abortion, years of racism, etc, before that, or did he just get tired of it and let us get bombed? It’s nonsensical.
You think Pearl Harbor was just God wanting us to get more involved in WWII but 9/11 was some type of punishment? How do you know that or did you just make it up?
Hi Jack,
I heard much wailing over the “legitimate” part but never felt he was in any way suggesting there was something “legitimate” about rape, just a very poor choice of words.
I agree he should have quit while he was ahead. The more he talked the more the ignoramus he displayed himself to be. While I have heard that theory as well I have never seen any evidence of it, and have seen it disputed. I would think it hard to determine being that many types of sexual assault cannot result in pregnancy, victims may be too young or too old, on birth control, or they may have miscarried. Certainly the pregnant victims of rape in areas of war and civil strife would beg to differ as well.
I’ve always personally felt like the ‘God’s protection on our nation’ article could be phrased more as “there’s a behavior I don’t agree with and I’m going to scare people with various non-provable or predictable threats”.
I mean, our nation was formed when we drove people from a land, built on the backs of slave labor, and has developed to a point where we love money above all else, and exploit poor workers of the world so that we can save a buck or two.
We abort babies, we demonize aliens, we love and use guns more than Bibles, and we’re more likely to watch porn than a good sermon.
There’s a billion reasons why we all should be in trouble – but we’ll never understand the depths of Christ’s love and grace. So who knows? Every day is a gift.
Jack – hey, on a side note (as one of the few sane health care people on this site) – did you see that medicare spending has slowed so much already that they’ve delayed the implementation of IPAB. Which is funny, because so many people said it was this crazy, rationing death panel, and now it won’t even be around for a few years (at least) because surprise, the only thing it rules over is medicare spending, and only if spending grows so fast.
EGV,
Isn’t this the reason?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/boehner-and-mcconnell-wont-appoint-members-to-medicare-savings-panel/article/2529251
Looks like Max isn’t alone concerning the “train wreck”.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/05/10/affordable-care-act-obamacare-column/2144409/
Nope Mary – the announcement was made BEFORE this open letter, and it had to do with a trigger point in the law, which was end of April:
http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/medicare-ipab-power-neutered-through-fiscal-2015/2013-05-06
http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2013/05/the-independent-payment-advisory-board-and-medicare-spending-new-research-suggests-a-change-in-our-medical-culture/
“I’ve always personally felt like the ‘God’s protection on our nation’ article could be phrased more as “there’s a behavior I don’t agree with and I’m going to scare people with various non-provable or predictable threats”.”
Lol, yes, that’s basically what I was getting at.
” Jack – hey, on a side note (as one of the few sane health care people on this site) – did you see that medicare spending has slowed so much already that they’ve delayed the implementation of IPAB. Which is funny, because so many people said it was this crazy, rationing death panel, and now it won’t even be around for a few years (at least) because surprise, the only thing it rules over is medicare spending, and only if spending grows so fast. ”
Pure liberal propaganda. Obviously they delayed implementing IPAB because the true defenders of the downtrodden (the GOP, obviously) stepped in heroically to stop the death panels. Or something like that.
EGV,
So what happens in 2016 if the Republicans still refuse?
Also, could this be a reason why the costs aren’t growing so fast?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/2/medicare-rationing-under-obamacare-has-started-alr/
Mary – then IPAB will move forward without any republican appointees. The executive branch picks 3, and 3 people come from both the GOP and the Dems at each level (house and senate) – but from what I understand, they get phased in anyway, so there are times when there will be less than 15 – so again, my understanding (still looking for info) is if the GOP refuses, it will be 9 members appointed by the President and the democrats in the house and senate.
Tough to know for sure why it slowed – there are various theories. That opinion isn’t much of one though, because Medicare has decided certain things to cover and not cover for years.
Some people say a strengthening economy (though I don’t know why that would curb medicare spending – medicaid I could see, because there would be less people, but not medicare). One theory I’ve read as well is that hospitals have already lowered readmission rates ahead of future penalties – and that could have already made a difference.
Regardless, medicare spending growth has already gone down to very low levels, which is awesome news, don’t you think?
EGV,
If the doctor’s opinion isn’t much of one then you should have no problem discrediting it.
Medicare spending at very low levels. Awesome news, don’t you think? You tell me EGV
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/betsy-mccaughey-obamacare-could-cost-35000-elderly-patients-their-lives-every-year/
Mary -
Why do you care anyway? In your plan, medicare wouldn’t exist? The elderly would try to find doctors to cover them (I guess paying with social security), and if that fails, look for charity care, and if that fails, die.
I mean, why do you really give a rat’s behind about somebody being denied eye drops if your plan means there is NO coverage?
You’ve kind of given up the right to complain about people not getting everything they want in a program if your ultimate hope is for that program to disappear completely.
“but from what I understand, they get phased in anyway, so there are times when there will be less than 15 – so again, my understanding (still looking for info)”
Ex-RINO, How many pages did you read to try and figure this out? And where are you looking for more info; HHS website or still reading the thousands of pages of the law? Is the average person supposed to be able to find this information or only the bureaucrats who want to run health care?
” You’ve kind of given up the right to complain about people not getting everything they want in a program if your ultimate hope is for that program to disappear completely. ”
This. It’s stunning. I don’t understand this way of thinking at all. Literally 90% of what I’ve heard from the right is complaining about people being given “entitlements”, but when Obamacare looks like it might make a dent in some “entitlements” then they complain? I don’t understand why people think that makes sense.
EGV,
Sure sounds a lot like the results of medicare cuts by Obamacare.
Hi Jack,
Did you read my link by Betsy McCaughey? Did you read the link by the doctor who says medicare rationing has already begun? Medicare is here to stay but let’s not add to the corruption, ineptness, and waste with yet another wasteful and corrupt gov’t program.
Mary, You post an article that says Obamacare is making cuts to medicare that could cost 35,000 elderly people their lives each year and Ex-RINO’s response is to deflect the medicare cuts and attack you by asking why you would give a rat’s behind anyway. Your first instinct is that Ex-RINO might have a reading comprehension problem but that quickly gives way to his repeated non-answers. His answer above was a perfect example. Instead of addressing your serious concern about the cuts Obamacare makes to medicare he attacks you and says you gave up the right to complain about the elderly not getting everything they want. Another example of this would be that in a liberal mind pro-life people are in a war against women because we don’t support them getting butchered by abortionists. You shouldn’t expect much in the way of rationality or reason from a liberal mind.
Hi ts,
Maybe he’s done reading the law itself and is working on the 20,000 pages of new regulations. 800 more were just added last week. A great picture gives one a better appreciation of what 20,000 pages of regulations look likes.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/03/12/photo-20000-pages-of-obamacare-regulations-n1532069
truth -
Doesn’t matter for you really – you don’t read the info presented to you, and then you don’t understand it. It shocks me you even are coming back into a healthcare debate after you showed last time your complete lack of understanding of the basic concepts. Continue to read and come back in a few months.
Mary -
I’ve read from some pretty smart people who haven’t come to that belief.
I’m surely not going to believe some old lady who equates healthcare to life in the 40’s, and completely screwed up the details of doctor job cuts, and ignored the evidence once presented.
I’m sorry – I’m just saying, you can’t simply state an opinion and then “poof”, it’s true.
So Truth, Mary – you are going to say, with a straight face, that a study based on California hospitals show that if we spent lots more money on people, we’d save lives…
…and at the same time, YOU Mary advocate a system in which people wouldn’t get top price care unless they could afford it (which happens now already)
…and at the same time YOU truth, while never holding on to anything you ever support, have previously supported Ryan’s plan (which cuts Medicare and then mostly eliminates it), or the status quo, WHICH IS WHEN THIS STUDY WAS RACKING UP DATA.
Seriously you two.
Ex-RINO. Most often people like you who resort to insults and ‘you have given up your right to care anyway’ are showing that they have no substantive counter-argument.
“Ed –
Where did I ever advocate homosexuality? ”
BTW- Did you tell EdH above that are against homosexuality (homosexual marriage) ?
EGV,
Don’t you get snotty with me sonny, I wasn’t even alive in the 40s but I have worked in the health care area over 40 years and have knowledge and experience and lifelong experiences where healthcare is concerned that you’ve only read about, if that. Also, I have never posted anything about doctors’ jobs cuts so try to keep your facts straight.
I’ve presented you with links. Disprove them or present countersources.
EGV,
What is this “system” you say I advocate?
“I’ve presented you with links. Disprove them or present countersources.”
Mary, it is just Ex-RINO making another attempt at redirecting the conversation away from your links and data. He will use everything from insults to talk about you not having the right to care and now your support for the ‘system’. He will never have any substantive counter-arguments cause that is not how he rolls.
Yes you did Mary – you claimed Health Care Reform was going to cut 93,000 medical jobs – which I found actual source material for the numbers, and then you still stuck with the number.
The system you advocate for it one in which third party payers don’t exist – a world without insurance. Is that not true?
truth –
I typically can’t post counter arguments to your questions because your questions aren’t even logical. When somebody asks questions about how IPAB effects health care exchanges, the conversation stops becaue they simply don’t understand. They aren’t questions that can even be answered.
Furthermore, you don’t even know what kind of health care system you support. Logically, you seem to support a full, univeral, single payer system (based on what you don’t like on health care reform), but you’ve never taken that step.
EGV,
I presented a source that said hospital jobs, not doctors’ jobs. Again, try to get it straight.
I have told you at least 300 times, give or take, what I support as an alternative to government intervention. Yes it includes insurance, as well as other free market alternatives. I’m not going over it again since if it hasn’t registered the last 300 times I told you, there’s no reason to think it will now.
Sure Mary, whatever
Have a good evening then.
Hi ts, 8:36PM
I see what you mean.
Mary – you were the one who said you weren’t going to explain it again, that was you that said it.
I don’t remember you ever supporting insurance – you’ve said that third party payments drive prices higher – now you are advocating for third party payments. But you won’t explain it.
So that’s fine – move on. You have that right.
EGV,
As I said I’ve told you at least 300 times what my free market alternatives include, and yes that includes insurance. Insurance companies can compete, people can pick and chose exactly what coverage they want, people can have medical expense accounts which they can pass on to their children or surviving spouse or whoever they so designate, generous tax write offs for out of pocket expenses. I really don’t want to go into the spiel again since I have so many times already and for some reason it doesn’t register with you.
The damage is done, third party payment did drive prices higher. People were strongly motivated to abuse “free” services that were paid for by others. Hopefully this trend can be reversed with the alternatives I suggested. At one time you called your pharmacist or family doctor for a cold remedy for your 5 kids, I saw parents bring all 5 kids into the ER because it was “free”, i.e. you and i were paying for it.
Look at that stack of Obamacare regulations that’s taller than you are and tell me how gov’t intervention is going to do anything other than create more bureaucracy, expense, corruption, and ineptness.
So you advocate the status quo – a mix of third party insurance, health care savings accounts, and people who aren’t insured. So the last 50 years of healthcare is what you advocate for.
So medicare – you seem to be pretty concerned about low medicare spending – are you advocating for an increase in medicare spending? If so, do you think we should raise taxes for it, or just increase the deficit?
Mary:
I read your Times link on the cutbacks to Medicare. I can attest that there is unprecedented pressure being exerted on doctors to minimize treatments to the elderly. A physician friend shared with me last fall that he treated a “young” 89 year old women who was experiencing discomfort in one of her legs. It was a relatively simple procedure to correct the situation. No good deed goes unpunished…he was summoned to appear before a board that demanded why he performed the procedure. It was clear to him the problem they had with it was because of the advanced age of the patient. He said the women was in very good health for her age and this simple procedure would save her much pain and the possible loss of her leg. This is the first time this happened to him…I have not spoken to him since so I don’t know if this is on-going.
Here’s a portion of a letter to Obama from McConnell and Boehner explaining why they aren’t offering any recommendations for the IPAB panel:
In order to allow supporters to claim that the law’s Medicare cuts would be realized in the future, it (The Affordable Care Act) tasked IPAB with reducing payments to providers or eliminating payments for certain treatments and procedures altogether. These reduced payments will force providers to stop seeing Medicare patients, the same way an increased number of doctors have stopped taking Medicaid patients. This will lead to access problems, waiting lists and denied care for seniors.
The unfortunate result is that decisions which impact America’s seniors will be made in the absence of the democratic process, without the system of checks and balances that would normally apply to important matters of public policy. Yet your recent budget called for expanding IPAB by tasking it with making even larger cuts to Medicare than those called for in the health law, even though the trustees of the Medicare program have told us that IPAB’s provider cuts would be “difficult to achieve in practice,” because of the denied care that seniors would experience.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obamacare-ipab-boehner-mcconnell-death-panels-2013-5#ixzz2StiPFsI3
One of the most amazing things about the raid on Medicare is that it takes funding that many of us contributed to for our entire working lives only to dispurse it among Obamacare recipients, many of whom will have contributed nothing. As a result of this raid on Medicare we who have contributed to the fund will now see reduced funding, slower and smaller payments to physicians, and fewer doctors willing to new medicare patients. Obamacare is all about redistributionism.
Mary, it is not enough for the liberal goons to kill the unborn when they see the elderly are also easy targets.
“One of the most amazing things about the raid on Medicare is that it takes funding that many of us contributed to for our entire working lives only to dispurse it among Obamacare recipients, many of whom will have contributed nothing.”
Jerry, that is amazing…I wish I could say it was unbelievable
Wow. I actually agreed with a few points X-GOP made regarding gay marriage. Excuse me…I think I just saw a pig fly past my window.
The first cartoon breaks my heart.
EGV,
Like I said I’ve explained it at least 300 times. If it hasn’t registered before, why should it now? I know the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing hoping for a different result but here goes.
I forgot to mention competition between doctors and hospitals as well. Our plastic surgeons have to be competetive and charge within reason in my city, as most plastic surgery is not covered by insurance, and none of them are going hungry. Amazing how people get the money when they want it bad enough, and I’m talking thousands of dollars.
Also EVG, uninsured does not equal no health care. I mentioned medical accounts people can set up. Insurance can offer plans that are very selective. One person may want full coverage, another may want only catastrophic coverage. Our insurance at work is such a plan. My husband and I have the bare minimum and pay the rest out of pocket. So far we can deduct that on our taxes but who knows for how long? Another may not want it at all. Let states set up coverage for those in need in their own state. Also, tort reform. Idiot juries have yet to realize that when they “stick it” to the insurance companies the cost gets passed on to them!
Its like insurance for your car EGV. You can pay full coverage and I hear there is now insurance for car repairs. Or you can have the bare minimum. Either way maintenance and the expense of your car is your responsibility, insurance only covers more extreme situations like accidents and weather damage.
Concerning Medicare, its another mismanaged and wasteful government boondoggle. Is it fixable? I can only hope so. I’m concerned by what I see as the deliberate targetting of senior citizens. Raising taxes? How about getting rid of obamacare and giving back to medicare the few billions it took?
Hi Jerry,
Outstanding post.
To think that elderly woman is a contributing member of society. She helps the economy by paying rent, she eats, dresses, gets her hair done. This gives people jobs. People who provided her care make their living doing so. What did that panel want? The poor woman to end up being amputated and debilitated, perhaps confined to a nursing home?
Mary –
I’m glad you mentioned car insurance – let’s stick with that for a minute – do you feel that people should be able to skip car insurance all together – just not carry it – why or why not?
Jerry -
Who is now covered under medicare that wasn’t before? You state “One of the most amazing things about the raid on Medicare is that it takes funding that many of us contributed to for our entire working lives only to dispurse it among Obamacare recipients, many of whom will have contributed nothing.”
Who is now covered under medicare?
Or are you saying that the bill is paid for cuts by health care reform (cuts supported by Paul Ryan, John McCain, and a heck of a lot of other Republicans?)
The problem, ex, is that we are trending toward fewer doctors taking Medicare patients, slower payments, smaller reimbursements, and fewer options…all because of Obama’s raid on Medicare funds. The level of funding is inadequate to keep up with the anticipated demand as 10,000 more people enter into Medicare every day. It is unsustainable and thanks to Obama it is only going to get worse…I do not think anything will be there for you. It is extremely unfair to those of us who paid in to the fund now to see it raided, but hey, the rosy feeling I have knowing that my hard earned retirement years will be spent looking for ways to pay for additional insurance makes up for it all because our dear leader asks us all to share the burden.
Mary@5:32:
My doctor friend said that was where the woman was headed if he did not treat her. He could hardly believe it was happening.
EGV,
I don’t think people should be forced to buy car insurance. If they feel they can financially manage without it, fine. Minimum coverage can be next to none anyway. However if you want full coverage or minimal, or none at all its your decision. The garage gets paid either way or you don’t get your car back.
Hi Jerry,
It is unbelievable. What is the rationale of spending thousands to keep this woman in a nursing home? Not to mention the emotional and physical devastation to her. Maybe they figure she’d just die and save them all a lot of money.
My mother broke her upper femur in a freak accident around 6 years ago and it was repeat hospitalizations and surgeries, falls at home, etc. Thankfully she got the care she needed. Then she suffered a mild stroke, she didn’t even know me, spent some time in a nursing home and recovered but assisted living was a must. She is now only mildly forgetful and confused but uses a walker. She also very much enjoys her life and the facility she resides at. BTW, this place employes caregivers, receptionists, gardeners, kitchen staff, housekeepers, physical and occupational therapists, and a social director. It seems like our elderly citizens generate a lot of economic activity and help create jobs. The senior citizen residence she lived in prior to all this also employed people by the hundreds. It was a massive complex.
BTW my mother’s care is paid for by money she wisely invested over the years. She does not have to live in a medicare facility, some of which look like something out of Alfred Hitchcock.
Mary – so if you got hit by an uninsured poor driver, and you just had some basic coverage, you’d be fine with that – that their actions created a financial liability for you?
EGV,
What if I got hit by someone who was driving with a suspended license and insurance said they wouldn’t pay up because the driver was driving illegally? Sure, I could go after the driver but what if he’s an 18y/o kid who works at Taco Bell and his parents are not legally responsible for him?
Guess I’d be SOL, ya think?
Nope Mary – I didn’t say that. 28 year old, decent pay but not much for assets – decided simply not to carry insurance. He’s not paying attention, rams your car, totals it and screws up your back.
Tough luck – you are fine with that?
EGV,
I’m not fine with that. Maybe I could try to garnish his wages. Anyway, what’s to say what insurance he did have would cover the damage and medical expenses? If he has minimal coverage, it may not or only up to a certain amount. Again, I’m SOL.
EGV,
Speaking of insurance, I hope you’re saving your pennies.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/insurers-predict-100-400-obamacare-rate-explosion/article/2529523
Mary – Okay – last question on the car insurance thing.
It’s easy to say somebody is SOL if they don’t have proper car insurance, they simply don’t get another car. But are you willing to extend that to health insurance – if somebody comes in during an emergency case, should hospitals turn them away if they don’t have good enough insurance?
Mary -
The article you posted doesn’t pertain to me – that is on the individual market – I get my insurance through my work.
Since you posted the article – does the cost take into effect subsidies on the private market, or are they all costs BEFORE subsidies? Furthermore, is the cost increase solely on the cost of premium, or out of pocket costs? If I pay $500 more for a premium, but save $1000 on out of pocket costs, it shouldn’t show as a $500 increase – but I’m guessing it does. Can you let me know?
EGV 8:11am
Of course they shouldn’t turn them away. Does the garage turn you away because your insurance doesn’t pay for the damage to your car? You pay the difference.
Maybe the patient can make up the difference. The hospital is usually willing to schedule payments. Or the hospital may have to eat the cost.
EGV,
Reread the article. Small businesses can expect average premium increases in the small group market of 50% with potential highs of 100%.
Even if these are on the individual market, does that make it OK? I thought Obamacare was going to lower costs. What happens to people who can’t afford these higher premiums? They go on the gov’t single payer system. So much for keeping your own insurance. Also, don’t be so certain you are safe from premium hikes through your employer.
As for your question, call your insurance agent and find out.
Mary – we’ll get to your second post when we finish this up.
The great majority of bills that go to people without insurance don’t get paid. Plus, with the complexity of medicine, bills can easily run in the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands.
If the hospital eats the cost, as you suggest, where do you think they are going to make up for that (the correct answer is charging more to those who have insurance). Do you think this freeloading is fair?
EGV,
Medical bills can run into the hundreds of thousands. So can legal bills. Yet I don’t hear anything about a “legal crisis” in this country even though you may have to plunk down a few thousand bucks before a lawyer will even talk to you.
Is it fair that those of us who have insurance or pay get charged more? Nope. Is it fair we pay higher insurance premiums because idiot jurors “give” away millions in frivulous lawsuits? Nope. Is it fair you pay more at the store because of shoplifters and employee theft? Nope. Is it fair you have reduced health benefits or pay more for them because people abuse them? Nope.
A whole lot isn’t fair EGV, and I honestly don’t know what is ever going to change it.
Mary – but lawyers aren’t obligated to take cases without pay – there’s no government mandate that says they have to do cases without compensation.
Here’s the bottom line. The heath care mandate was originally a conservative idea based on the principle of individual responsibility. The argument says that, since medical facilities are obligated to treat people, than any individual person is a potential massive liability to the public (if somebody gets into a car accident and racks up hundreds of thousands of bucks, everyone else is on the hook). Because of that, everybody should have to have coverage and pay their share so that they aren’t freeloading off the system.
Do you generally agree with that principle or reject it?
EGV,
BTW, a defendent is entitled to legal representation and a lawyer will be provided if the defendent can’t pay. I’m sure these lawyers don’t work for free so likely you are helping foot the bill for hundreds of thousands of dollar in legal assistance.
It sounds great in theory, everything does, but the reality is another matter altogether. Yes I wish there was some instant remedy. However good the intentions its only resulting in another corrupt, inept, bloated, astronomically expensive, and out of control gov’t bureaucracy called Obamacare. Sounds like the “cure” is worse than the disease.
Sorry EGV but the world is loaded with freeloaders of every kind and you and I will continue to foot the bill for them.
Public defenders are typically a state position paid by the government.
I didn’t ask if it was a good theory, I was asking if you generally believe people should be able to freeload off the healthcare system.
There is a much easier cure – single payer system, universal care. Coming to a theater near you…
EGV,
The gov’t doesn’t pay for anything, the taxpayer does and yes EGV, you are helping to pay plenty of legal bills.
It is what it is, there will always be freeloaders, how do you like paying someone else’s legal bills?
I’ve already pointed out the “cure” you suggest is worse than the diesease. BTW, I wouldn’t stand too close to that stack of regulations I linked to in an earlier post. Imagine if those fell on you!
There’s a difference Mary – hospitals are one entity – it isn’t as if the government has paid facilities like there are public defenders – a better comparison would be if every lawyer had to take free cases, and raise the rates on everyone else.
The cure isn’t worse than the disease – for years, we’ve had out of control rates and rising unemployment rates. The problem has been getting worse, not better. A better solution would have been a single payer system – this is a decent compromise in the mean time.
EGV,
Many lawyers will volunteer their services. If they pass the costs on to paying clients is anyone’s guess. Also, what do you think city, county, state, and VA hospitals are? They’re either city, state, county, or federal gov’t run.
The problem can still be controlled by free market forces and more competition, as well as better efficiency and management on the part of hospitals and clinics, not another gov’t boondoggle. Remember not to stand too close to that stack of regulations.
And public hospitals are closing at a much faster rate than any others because of the uncompensated care.
The health care market had decades of free market forces, and it has created a massive mess. There’s simply little evidence that free market forces will help – not in a world where people can’t really shop for prices, must have care (and can’t just walk away), and the experts recommending services often have an ownership stake in the facility. Furthermore, we pay for services, not outcomes – so hospitals (up until reform) are better off racking up extra changes through readmssions than they are doing it right the first time.
I’m guessing it will take tens of thousands of pages of regulations – when you have a massively broken sytem, it takes a big solution.