Lalo Alcaraz by Lalo Alcaraz

Tags: Be the first to tag this comic!

Comments (42) Jump to Comments Form

believecommonsense said, 3 months ago

Masters of Healthcare … insurance industry.
cjr53 said, 3 months ago

Too bad he didn’t draw a little “Profit” chart in the background, showing every time a claim is denied, the profits go up.
ynnek58 said, 3 months ago

Though I don’t exactly agree – it’s a good toon. Problem is there are just as many Darths working for you in the Government.
Buzzy-One said, 3 months ago

Anandy … looking at your track record, then Ms Polsi must be a Saint.
Copperdomebodhi said, 3 months ago

I’m with you, CJR. Insurance company reviewers get promoted or fired based on how many claims they deny. At least Government bureaucrat “Darths” would get evaluated on how closely they follow the rules.
brine said, 3 months ago

How true it is!!! As someone who was denied services and had to go through hoops and multiple doctors to get an MRI that my original doctor ordered, I can HONESTLY ay the insurance companies are in the business of collecting premiums and denying services!!!

BTW, those three months to get the MRI allowed the tumor to double in size and I needed two surgeries because of complications!!!
lalas said, 3 months ago

Stoopid libruls… the insurance companies are run by bunnies and little angels that care about nothing more than lollipops, rainbows and you. teeheeheehee
Anthony 2816 said, 3 months ago

It’s obvious that ANandy (1) is heavily invested in the insurance industry, and (2) loves his profits and hates his fellow Americans to the same degree.

Must be one of those “compassionate conservatives” we heard so much about during the early Bush years.

That’s why I could never be one. I just don’t have the hatred for my fellow Americans that ANandy does.
PlainBill said, 3 months ago

ANandy’s delusions to the contrary, this is true. I’ve had it happen repeatedly, although never with life-threatening consequences.

On one doctor’s visit another patient was discussing the problems the Doctor’s staff was having collecting payments from this patient’s HMO. He explained in detail the steps the HMO would take to deny a claim. The funny part was he had experience from both sides. He worked for the HMO, processing (and denying) claims. Now it was his claims that were being denied.

Payback can be such a b**ch!!!
Anthony 2816 said, 3 months ago

You’re right, PlainBill.

If only there was some way we could reform the present system.

Unfortunately, we have so many people like Nandy who are profiting from the present system, and therefore resisting any reforms, that it seems the necessary reforms won’t be enacted.

Just one of the problems of democracy.
oldlegodad said, 3 months ago

From another well known authoritative site:

http://graphjam.com/2009/08/21/song-chart-memes-politics/
dtroutma said, 3 months ago

Just got TWO letters from my PRIVATE insurer. My medication is not made by THEIR drug company(actual subsidiary), so I’ve been waiting 6 weeks for a refill on my doctor’s prescription. They’re now saying I won’t get the number of pills he prescribed, even though my copay is MORE than the actual cost of the drug. Of course after 6 weeks of delays, again, it happens every time I try to refill, I STILL HAVE NOT GOTTEN MY MEDICATION. VA by the way refilled my prescription, in 2 days. So don’t go even remotely thinking the government is less efficient than private companies.
Anthony 2816 said, 3 months ago

Trout, quit whining. If we get health care reform, your own grandparents will be aborted.

Plus you’ll only be able to get your pills from the government’s drug company…and then only after six weeks of waiting, and even then it’ll be for fewer pills, which will cost you less that they’re worth…

Wait, what?

Where’s ANandy to call you a traitor for fretting about this?
dtroutma said, 3 months ago

tony, one of my GREAT grandparents was Irish, so that would explain the bloated? OHHHHH you said ABORTED! Need another Guinness to stay true to my roots.
M Henri Day said, 3 months ago

When the evidence that the US system is a failure - the low life expectancy, the high infant mortality, and the fact that nearly one sixth of the population that does not have access to insurance and thus medical care outside the ER - is denied by people who one would think should know better, it would be wise to keep in mind Upton Sinclair’s observation : «It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!» Follow the money !…

Henri
Anthony 2816 said, 3 months ago

Henri, I wish you could get your posts in early in these threads, instead of after everyone who could benefit from them have abandoned the threads.
NoFearPup said, 3 months ago

Henri. Low infant mortality and life expectancy is a statistical error developed from the U.S. and other nations using different standards. You probably knew this or don’t care. Just sit , be still, and learn from your older brothers in Liberty. Maybe you can still retrieve your croissants from the islamic firestorm that is engulfing your country…
Anthony 2816 said, 3 months ago

Can you elucidate further about the statistical stuff, Puppy? I hadn’t heard about that before.
ynnek58 said, 3 months ago

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-doctor-is-in-infant-mortality-comparisons-a-statistical-miscarriage/2/

U.S. infant mortality rates (deaths of infants <500g is not considered a living child.
But in the U.S., such very low birth weight babies are considered live births. The mortality rate of such babies — considered “unsalvageable” outside of the U.S. and therefore never alive — is extraordinarily high; up to 869 per 1,000 in the first month of life alone. This skews U.S. infant mortality statistics.
When Canada briefly registered an increased number of low weight babies previously omitted from statistical reporting, the infant mortality rose from 6.1 per 1,000 to 6.4 per thousand in just one year.
According to research done by Canada’s Bureau of Reproductive and Child Health, “Comparisons of infant mortality rates by place and time should be adjusted for the proportion of such live births, especially if the comparisons involve recent years.”
Norway boasts one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world. But when the main determinant of mortality — weight at birth — is factored in, Norway has no better survival rates than the United States.
Pregnancies in very young first-time mothers carry a high risk of delivering low birth weight infants. In 2002, the average age of first-time mothers in Canada was 27.7 years. During the same year, the same statistic for U.S. mothers was 25.1 — an all-time high.
Some of the countries reporting infant mortality rates lower than the U.S. classify babies as “stillborn” if they survive less than 24 hours whether or not such babies breathe, move, or have a beating heart at birth.
Forty percent of all infant deaths occur in the first 24 hours of life.
In the United States, all infants who show signs of life at birth (take a breath, move voluntarily, have a heartbeat) are considered alive.
If a child in Hong Kong or Japan is born alive but dies within the first 24 hours of birth, he or she is reported as a “miscarriage” and does not affect the country’s reported infant mortality rates.
The length of pregnancy considered “normal” is 37-41 weeks. In Belgium and France — in fact, in most European Union countries — any baby born before 26 weeks gestation is not considered alive and therefore does not “count” against reported infant mortality rates.
Too short to count?
In Switzerland and other parts of Europe, a baby born who is less than 30 centimeters long is not counted as a live birth. Therefore, unlike in the U.S., such high-risk infants cannot affect Swiss infant mortality rates.
Efforts to salvage these tiny babies reflect this classification. Since 2000, 42 of the world’s 52 surviving babies weighing less than 400g (0.9 lbs.) were born in the United States.
The parents of these children may view socialized medicine somewhat differently than its proponents.
ynnek58 said, 3 months ago

The interesting thing is once you’ve corrected for the way infant mortality is reported, the US is on par with Norway, which is supposed to have the highest infant survival rate. I didn’t know the reporting was done differently either – quite a shocker. It’s another case where the data has been flogged until it confessed. People who misrepresent the data like that are obviously trying to paint a very specific picture about the US healthcare system (i.e. how bad it is). Truth-o-meter – liar liar pants on fire.
omQ R said, 3 months ago

^Bollocks.
Oh brother, didnºt I have a reply a few weeks ago which included stats from the WHO about this whole thing…now where is it…
omQ R said, 3 months ago

Ah, here it is!

GNWachs: Nonsense. You’re using out-moded data.
I’m guessing you’re referring to: Behind the Baby Count

Most countries have now adopted the W.H.O.’s definition:

You might have a better argument saying less developed countries may not have better reporting of deaths which skew their data; or as they improve their reporting, their numbers apparently go up before going down (as their healthcare also improves). But comparing most developed nations, even reducing to just Western nations, the reporting and IMR are accurate enough to allow direct comparison.

UNICEF uses a computing method to compensate for these differing rates. It is therefore an unofficial rate but nonetheless tries to minimise errors.

End of transcript.

Definition

Under-five mortality rate is the probability of a child born in a specific year or period dying before reaching the age of five, if subject to age-specific mortality rates of that period.

Infant mortality rate is the probability of a child born in a specific year or period dying before reaching the age of one, if subject to age-specific mortality rates of that period.

Associated terms

Under-five mortality rate and Infant mortality rate, are strictly speaking, not rates (i.e. the number of deaths divided by the number of population at risk during a certain period of time) but a probability of death derived from a life table and expressed as rate per 1000 live births.

Live birth refers to the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of the pregnancy, which, after such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life - e.g. beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles - whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached. Each product of such a birth is considered live born.

Source: W.H.O.
omQ R said, 3 months ago

A comprehensive reply and debunk point by point of the data ynnek58 posted above is here:

‘Debunk - ‘US infant mortality rates aren’t so bad’

The doctor, Linda Halderman, has apparently not done any independent research. Instead, she has merely rehashed a 2005 article authored by a ‘scientists’ employed by that noted bastion of scientific objectivity, the Discovery Institute (for those unfamiliar with these folks, their primary mission is to promote creationism/”intelligent design”, perhaps that’s why their science is so faulty)

Sigh. So much misinformation, so little time…
ynnek58 said, 3 months ago

So, we then believe ‘managed Care Matters’ as though they also have no agenda. Whatever. (I’m not saying the first one that popped up on the internet search wasn’t a quack BTW, just that everybody, including them that report for the government have an agenda)).

Here’s the real scoop: I got my wife prenatal care because I knew I should (who doesn’t – you’d have to be an idiot… oops, I my be on to something). I made sure she got the nutrition/vitamins she needed because she was my wife and that was my baby. All them other women – I didn’t get them pregnant, I have no idea whether or not they were superior breeding stock (the guy or the gal) or not, what they ate, shot-up, drank, smoked, whether they were underage (which increases risk), or whether they even gave the child they birthed proper care after it was delivered. etc. I have no control over them and I was not involved at all in that whole chain of events. There is no way to know what caused any of the disparity in infant mortality – it is entirely possible its 100% due to stupidity (on average) and you may be as close to the truth as anyone. Bottom line is that I took care of what I wrought, and what I was responsible for. They should do no less than the same – either that, or put it in the holster. Again IMO little to do with the system of choice and something huge to do with individual resposibility [or lack thereof].
omQ R said, 3 months ago

ynnek asked:
So, we then believe ‘managed Care Matters’

No, believe the W.H.O. At least you recognise your source is a quack.

ynnek will probably again shrug:
Whatever.

And give us another anecdotal account.
NoFearPup said, 3 months ago

It’s not over ‘til the fat lady sings. For new readers: Never trust a Libs final coup de grace. In other words: Don’t sweat it. Their sources are usually suspect and their conclusions skewed, besides. It’s obvious that world birth mortality is a bigger issue to get a hold of than under-funded, special-interest driven U.N. NGO’s can handle, let alone snarky web-journalists and (dot)org’s. The Perfesser’s Club and their NEW, IMPROVED ideas are wearing thin. I’m going to keep hold of my GM “clunker” for a little while longer, thank you.
ynnek58 said, 3 months ago

omQ R
whatever, [insert anecdotal account here]
4uk4ata said, 3 months ago

“It’s obvious that world birth mortality is a bigger issue to get a hold of than under-funded, special-interest driven U.N. NGO’s can handle”

Yeah, right. Of course the UN is driven by special interests, unlike anyone on the other side of the debate. As if everyone in the UN has nothing better to do than take sides in the US healthcare debates. There are quite a few “special interests” (and better funded, too) on the side that you are taking, NFP.
Anthony 2816 said, 2 months ago

Puppy thinks it’s great that despite spending trillions a year on health care, millions have no access to it, and the fact that costs are rising continually.

Well, I assume she likes it. Like a good Republican she says “NO!” to any sort of reform, but refuses to (or more likely, can’t) explain why the present system is so great.
NoFearPup said, 2 months ago

I don’t need to defend the status quo; the burden is on the prosecution to prove malfeasance, and they’ve been able to defer cross-examination for too long.

4ukata: the “studies” and such, that are being thrown up for analysis are from all manner of sources and venues; the U.N. money chase just comes to my mind as the most obvious.
Anthony 2816 said, 2 months ago

In other words, you can’t defend the status quo.

If you think the “prosecution” has been deferring, then you’ve had your head in the sand. Here, I’ll get you started:

http://tinyurl.com/ktlw9s
NoFearPup said, 2 months ago

Anthony, you keep chucking but your pile don’t get bigger; or is it smaller? Depends if its coming in or going out…Already answered the Ezra Klein article in general - buzz , next question, please.
BTW the way- thank you for that earlier link - it reaffirmed for me that you Libs are just WRONG.
How about this: empower the doctors and hospitals; they are the ones who provide the services and should be collecting the money. Isn’t that how capitalism is supposed to work? Then you can tax healthy, working Americans to provide for community-run emergency rooms, etc. like how we provide fire protection currently, etc. (If it would even be necessary after you actually give the doctors the money they earned, etc.) The doctors I know about do like to make money - but they also are generally the type of people who are chomping at the bit for the opportunity to apply their skills and practice their profession - it would be hard to STOP doctors from tackling the administration of effective and economical emergency rooms.
The Lib solution is worse than the leave-it-alone solution in that you further complicate what is already ridiculously mired in government and provider red-tape; you give initiative a big whack , and repress the free distribution of services. All for 12 million people who do not know where the door to the SSi or medicaid office is.
Anthony 2816 said, 2 months ago

I was right. You can’t defend the status quo.

Let’s look at your alternate ideas:

“doctors and hospitals; they…should be collecting the money”

Um, Puppy? That’s already happening.

“Then you can tax healthy, working Americans to provide for community-run emergency rooms”

Increase taxes. Yeah, that’ll be an easy sell.
And are these emergency rooms going to be attached to hospitals, like our existing ones are?

“The doctors…are generally the type of people who are chomping at the bit for the opportunity to apply their skills and practice their profession - it would be hard to STOP doctors from tackling the administration of effective and economical emergency rooms.”

Your first point it true, and because it is true, your second point is wrong. Most doctors aren’t interested in administration.

“The Lib solution is worse than the leave-it-alone solution…”

That would be the leave-it-alone solution that you’re unable to defend, and incredulously, didn’t even seem to know was broken?
Anthony 2816 said, 2 months ago

Wanna see something both sad and funny, Puppy? Look at the last posts in this thread:

http://www.gocomics.com/chuckasay/2009/08/13?comments_page=2

First, it shows that it was 12 days ago that I first asked you to “explain how remaining with our present system is better.” And back then, a week ago, instead of doing it, you instead proposed more government regulation.

Now you’re proposing more taxes.

The new Republicans must be so proud of you!
NoFearPup said, 2 months ago

1). I answered any questions worth responding to (without prejudice) when you asked them.
2). I offered cogent points worth discussing at that time in response.
3). I’m not PRO yet; so I can’t check your link.
4). I could care less what Republicans think.
5). I don’t know where I’ve asked for more regulation or taxes; just what’s reasonable or necessary, as always.
Here some Points you always dance around, Mr. Jennifer Beals:
a.) Democrats are squashing debate; why?
b.) Your articles offered in debate are liberally-biased.
c). Not one Republican vote is necessary for passage.
d). We have a constitutional right against the government butting in to our private business.

GoComics graciously allowed me to access your link, Anthony and I left you a present:
http://www.gocomics.com/chuckasay/2009/08/13?comments_page=2
striper77 said, 2 months ago

Ted Kennedy now knows the truth on his socialized heath care.
Anthony 2816 said, 2 months ago

Puppy:

You have never answered my request to tell why our present health system is so great. All you’ve done is show you didn’t even know any of the problems with it.
In the previous post, you say “Then you can tax healthy, working Americans…”, and now you say “I don’t know where I’ve asked for more regulation or taxes”. And in the previous thread that you’ve found you can access, you said “they could audit the books of every insurance agency from here to kingdom come”. Don’t you ever remember what you write?

a. I was going to say tell that to the Republican shills who’ve been screaming and yelling to stop debate at the town hall meetings, but I doubt they’d hear you.

b. I gave you a Google listing based on “American health system problems”, and you say ALL of them are liberally biased? That’s a pretty strong level of paranoia even for you, Puppy.

d. You say “We have a constitutional right against the government butting in to our private business.” Really? First, where does it say that in the Constitution? Second, you called for exactly that when you wrote “they could audit the books of every insurance agency from here to kingdom come”. Don’t you ever remember what you write?
NoFearPup said, 2 months ago

Round and round, the Pole-Dancer goes…
Where she stops, everyone knows…Nowhere.
Anthony 2816 said, 2 months ago

Yeah, yeah, I know I’m probably wasting my time trying to engage you in a rational discussion, but instead of spinning around and proudly announcing you’re going nowhere, why not try replying to my points? Then I’ll reply to yours, and so on, and we both might learn something.
NoFearPup said, 2 months ago

I have learned a lot, Anthony. I have learned that libs have so much envy, inherent- guilt, and self-deception that it is often a waste of time debating with them.
Anthony I’m lazy and also uninterested (that much) in what other people think about “debatable” issues; I state my case , follow-up, if absolutely necessary, and move on.
Please respond to the fact that, of the Ten Reasons that Ezra Klein mentioned in his article, not one stands on its own as without contention.
Anthony 2816 said, 2 months ago

And I’ve learned that your attitude towards your mythical version of “libs” is nothing short of bigotry. Is that how your bible teaches you to stereotype people?

And don’t even bother asking me to “respond” until you demonstrate you’re capable of the same. Learn some common courtesy…until then, my answer to your request will be on the level you understand:

“Round and round, the Pole-Dancer goes…
Where she stops, everyone knows…Nowhere.”
NoFearPup said, 2 months ago

Anthony, you’re trying too hard…get some rest.

Lalo Alcaraz by Lalo Alcaraz

Comments (42) Jump to Comments Form

Editorials A-Z Navigation

The Perfect Gift: Collectible Framed Comics.

About Lalo Alcaraz

Comic Strips

Editorials

Explore

Help

Search

The Uclick Network

Lalo Alcaraz by Lalo Alcaraz

Email this to a friend

Bookmark And Share

Want to see this comic everyday? It's Easy

Not registered?

Want to get this comic everyday? It's Easy

Not registered?

Comments (42) Jump to Comments Form

Editorials A-Z Navigation

The Perfect Gift: Collectible Framed Comics.

About Lalo Alcaraz

Comic Strips

Editorials

Explore

Help

Search

The Uclick Network

Ooops! This feature is for registered users only.

Not registered?

Sign In to GoComics