I was ninja’d again. I blame it on Excel taking so long to load.
How much is due to the rise in maternal mortality rates since so many laws have been passed to restrict access to abortion?
Probably none. You’d be talking about a small percentage (women who die in pregnancy) of a small percentage (pregnant women who wanted an abortion but couldn’t get one) of a small percentage (pregnant women who wanted an abortion in any given year).
Besides, this is more likely due to the surge in deaths of “middle aged white guys” we’ve been reading so much about. I doubt many of them were seeking abortions.
Doesn’t this ignore the fact that premiums were skyrocketing before Obamacare passed in 2010? Here’s a 2009 Time article that reports premiums having risen by 131% in the previous ten years. If you blame Obamacare for rising premiums since 2010, to what do you attribute rising premiums before 2010?
The fact that we let black people vote, probably.
In terms of the policies they enact, there may not be a difference. But I think it makes a difference in how you campaign against them, and try to get their supporters to come around to your way of thinking.
nm
This is a viable topic for discussion. As I have been pointing out to family members, we do not use health insurance the way we use other insurance - as a protection against unlikely but catastrophic expenses. Rather, we use health insurance as a collective health payment plan. We pay into the plan, and then every health expense we incur gets submitted to the plan for first payment and adjustment, and then the rest is passed back to us.
Also noted in this Time article:
That link says precisely the opposite of what you claim.
I realize others have already taken this to task, and this poster is now banned, but I took a look at the chart presented in the article. That is a very distorted presentation. When presenting data, one should include the origin (0,0) in the chart. If one does so with that data, and scales the y-axis (vertical) to the same height as the one of that chart, the rise at the end is just barely perceptible. At the original scale I used when creating the chart, that line appeared to just be a straight, flat line.
The article is also duplicitous because, while it makes the pseudo-effort to state “correlation does not equal causation”, the entire argument the author is trying to make is that the rise in mortality is directly the result of Obamacare. The article by Budget Player Cadet addresses this very well.
You mean to say that people who could not get health care before, and you give them health care, they don’t die as much? Wow.
“Don’t die as much”?
I don’t know how other provinces run things, but in Alberta health care is rationed and we only get one death each.
Don’t you have prepare a Statement of Apology?
No, that business about Canadians being all apologetic and stuff is a myth. Sort of like how your country is the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Well, I live there! We never said everybody was free and brave.
I understand and sympathize with the message that not having health insurance is harmful to people and leads to shorter and/or lower-quality lives, but hyperbolic rhetoric does not advance the cause.
People requiring emergency, life-saving care are not simply allowed to die without having coverage. I spent much of my early adulthood in poverty and was without health insurance in multiple cases where I needed emergency assistance. I was provided help and when proving my low-income status I was only required to pay back a small portion of the cost of my treatment, and to pay it over installments I could afford. No I couldn’t afford regular checkups or other preventative care but that did not put my life in immediate danger and could not have directly resulted in my death.
A person who has insurance and one who doesn’t have the same mortality rate, 100%. Insurance does not confer immortality. So if lacking insurance won’t cause immediate death, and having it doesn’t prevent eventual death, then people claiming that a lack of health insurance kills people are factually incorrect. It’s inaccurate alarmist rhetoric that takes away from any rational argument you form around it.
So this is just my suggestion, stop with the over-the-top language because the actual problem is dire enough without exaggeration. People who can’t afford the insurance will live shorter, more miserable lives. That’s the situation borne out by facts, stick with it.
You’re not free, you just haven’t been arrested for laughing at Boss Hogg yet.
Are you fucking kidding me?
By that logic murder doesn’t kill people since they were going to die anyway! A person who gets shot in the head and a person who doesn’t get shot in the head have the same mortality rate, after all: 100%.
One of the key provisions of the ACA was preventive care. My breast cancer was caught with a routine mammogram when it was less than one centimeter in size. My late husband had a kidney transplant that prolonged his life by at least 10 years. Trips to the emergency room do not constitute preventive care or care for chronic conditions.
BTW, who do you suppose paid the full cost of your treatment, hmmm?
I can only assume you’re under 20 and in excellent health. Good for you.
Where’s your outrage over the OP’s ridiculous premise? This whole thread is foolish hyperbole.
I’m 40. And nothing you’ve said contradicts my post. Preventative care is important and should be available to everyone. As I’ve said, not having it leads to shorter, more miserable lives.
I’m not used to Pit talking, do I need to curse more?
Speaking of that, in a previous discussion a poster remarked that the women’s ability to have life saving surgery is completely tied to her employment, it was a thread about how women can lose their jobs if they get complications in their pregnancy, particularly if they do not have a good job.
And if you have a bad job but a preexisting condition, the loss of ACA also can mean a return or an increase of the job lock issue.
http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20161228/NEWS/161229966
This is why I said many times before that the current health care in America would make perfect sense only to a medieval feudal lord.