But even if the increased rates are part of the law, is govt really forced to implement it? NO.
Are there precedents? YES.
2/
Health officials should stop hiding behind the law to impose its unjustifiable increased contribution rates.
PhilHealth is allegedly forced to require higher payments from members as this is a provision of the Universal Health Care (UHC) Law.
Totoo ba ito? NO.
1/
But even if the increased rates are part of the law, is govt really forced to implement it? NO.
Are there precedents? YES.
2/
But to date, these benefits are not all given to HCWs in govt hospitals. Govt refuses to provide funds for these benefits.
So HCWs still have to fight for these.
3/
However, from the outset, govt refused to implement this provision despite pleas and demands from nurses.
The Supreme Court finally decided in favor of the nurses in 2019.
4/
Worse, Nurse 2-6 nurses were demoted and the Nurse 7 level was removed, leading to outrage and demoralization.
Yes, govt has a history of NOT implementing laws.
5/
Mas dapat hindi ito ipatupad!
And the increased PhilHealth rates IS oppressive!
6/
Also, giving more money to PhilHealth is unjustified!
Why give MORE money to an institution that cannot account for at least P15 billion of its funds?
Para nakawin o mawala lang ulit?
7/
So what assurance is there that giving PhilHealth MORE money now will improve its services? NONE.
Unless these issues are addressed, there should be NO increase in rates.
8/
More from Health
Some thoughts on this: Firstly, it might be personal preference, but I am not keen on this kind of campaign as I feel like it trivialises cancer. Sometimes the serious message gets lost because people are sharing pics of cats or whatever and the important context is gone.
More importantly, the statistic being used in the campaign is misleading. It says 57% of women put off cervical screening if they can't get waxed. But on further investigation, that's not accurate.
The page here goes on to say "57% of women who regularly have their pubic hair professionally removed would put off attending their cervical screening appointment if they hadn’t been able to visit a beauty salon."
So the 57% represents a concern not across the whole population of women, but only those who regularly get waxed. So how big of an issue is this across the whole population? And what else is stopping people getting smears?
I think campaigns for cancer screening are really tricky because there is so much nuance that often doesn't fit into a catchy headline or hashtag. It's certainly not easy and is part of a bigger conversation.
It\u2019s #CervicalCancerPreventionWeek \U0001f499
— myGP (@myGPapp) January 18, 2021
Here\u2019s how you can help to raise awareness:
\U0001f431 Share an image of the cat that best reflects your undercarriage/flower/bits (technical term vulva!) current look.
#\u20e3Use the Hashtag #myCat.
\U0001f46dTell and tag your friends to let them know. pic.twitter.com/8aHf96ynjT
More importantly, the statistic being used in the campaign is misleading. It says 57% of women put off cervical screening if they can't get waxed. But on further investigation, that's not accurate.
The page here goes on to say "57% of women who regularly have their pubic hair professionally removed would put off attending their cervical screening appointment if they hadn’t been able to visit a beauty salon."
So the 57% represents a concern not across the whole population of women, but only those who regularly get waxed. So how big of an issue is this across the whole population? And what else is stopping people getting smears?
I think campaigns for cancer screening are really tricky because there is so much nuance that often doesn't fit into a catchy headline or hashtag. It's certainly not easy and is part of a bigger conversation.
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
