What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
306 Comments
- Ajajadude, on 12/26/2007, -24/+119Insurance companies will find anyway possible to not pay their share and it's quite sickening, let alone frustrating.
- Dumbledorito, on 12/26/2007, -10/+63They know the most important thing about (black) comedy: Timing.
- mediaphile, on 12/26/2007, -36/+79What does Christmas eve have to do with it?
Also, I'm sure you're all doctors just like the parents of the child so maybe you would know more about this issue than me, but it seems logical that if someone is likely to die with or without a liver transplant, giving them a donor liver means denying someone else a liver. Donor organs are hard to come by and always in extreme demand, so despite the pressure from the families, they still have to decide who are the best candidates for the few organs they have. No matter who they choose, it's likely that someone else will die because of it, so why give the organ to someone who is very likely to die even with the liver? - satanatnmtedu, on 12/26/2007, -21/+62The girl had a 65% chance to live 6 months. 6 months in a coma. It wouldn't be 6 months of an active and joyous life. The idea that she could get a liver transplant was a selfish one, and the decision by the family to sue is another selfish one.
- lieutenantmudd, on 12/26/2007, -11/+41As evil as their decision might be, how can this thing not happen over and over? The system is inherently set up to deny claims. All these insurances are for profit companies, and they make money off of collecting as much as possible while denying as much as possible. Even if Cigna gets banged on this, the system won't change. What's that line from the Wire, the game is the game?
- bawpcwpn, on 12/26/2007, -16/+46I live in Australia. We are on a National Healthcare system a.k.a Medicare. I almost drowned when I was 6 in a pool. I had to spend the night in hospital for observation. How much would that have cost me in the US for that night? It would have cost me something I assume. However, over here it was essentially free because we pay that little extra in taxes. It's not as evil and wrong as you think it is.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 12/26/2007, -5/+30But but but Socialized medicine is evil! The rest of the world is wrong!
/Stupid - johndi, on 12/26/2007, -5/+29Transplants are not experimental, however according to "Dr. Stuart Knechtle, who heads the liver transplant program at the University of Wisconsin at Madison Transplantation is not an option for leukemia patients because the immunosuppressant drugs 'tend to increase the risk and growth of any tumors.' " So, yes in this case they are still experimental.
Death is natural, but it is especially sad when someone dies so young. The way people are using this tragedy is ***** up, and every bit as disgusting as what the Republicans did with Terri Schiavo. BTW: read the article yourself she died because life support was removed.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12 ... - tankd0g, on 12/26/2007, -7/+30Why is this news, it happens every god damn day in the US.
- solidsnake1298, on 12/26/2007, -12/+35If you read the original story you would have realized that even IF she got the liver transplant, and thats a big if because of the rarity of livers and the long waiting list, she would of had no more then 6 months to live anyway. Her Leukemia caused her liver to fail in the first place. Getting the liver transplant doesn't fix her leukemia, it just prolongs her inevitable death.
Yes, her getting denied a liver transplant was partially caused by corporate greed, but in the end, it was a wise decision. Yes, its sad, but she was going to die anyway. - pintomp3, on 12/26/2007, -12/+34the decision should be made by the doctor, not the bean counters. that's the problem with for-profit insurance.
- JTJaskot, on 12/26/2007, -10/+31We need health insurance companies to start taking the Hippocratic oath.
- easy4lif, on 12/26/2007, -5/+25According to the LA times article, she was suffering complications from a recent bone marrow transplant. in laymans terms, the first transplant operation was successful but she was in the beginning stages of rejection/infection. Being a transplant patient myself I know that the meds they put you on are severely powerful (Gengraf Cellcept Predizone) and if the doctors overdose you on these meds because they try to fight off rejection you could lose other organs. Heres the second problem, if she had received the liver transplant, she would have been on the exact same meds that probably did the damage to begin with. when I was sick, a nurse told me the real odds of of my transplant survival, and gave me one bit of advice i'll give everyone here. Once your body suffers rejection, your immune system will react faster the second time.
she was dying and no amount of meds or organ replacements would have saved her life. - ginsengbomb, on 12/26/2007, -5/+25That's a straw man if I ever read one. Satanatblablabla's comment wasn't about -who- made the decision, it was about the decision itself. There are an enormous number of people on the liver transplant waiting list -- many of whom would have a higher than 65% chance of living well past 6 months. There is a point at which utilitarianism has to come into play, and this is such a point. It's an awful thing to consider but how can you morally justify giving one girl -maybe- 6 months of life if it possibly prolongs or makes permanent the suffering of someone who could live substantially longer?
- Hipple, on 12/26/2007, -13/+33"Her doctors told Cigna in a letter that patients in similar situations had a 65% chance of living six months if they received a liver transplant."
Hmm... Did you read the article? That means she would have lived 6 more months in the best case. - xGeneric, on 12/26/2007, -5/+23Digg as usual here. "Oh no, an article about an evil insurance company letting a kid die to save some money". No, the kid would have died anyway, the transplant was to give the kid months, not years. Also, the kid did not die because of this, they died because they were taken off life support.
Now, what do you want to bet that the majority of the people digging this story would also digg a story titled "Parents demand liver to give their child months, deny other child who would have lived years", and then made dozens of comments such as "While I feel bad for the parents, clearly the child who would get many years out of the transplant deserves it more than the child who is only expected to live months... if they even survive the surgery"
I feel bad for the people, no one should loose a child like that, and it's sad to see someone so young suffer and loose their life. However, the actual story is not what most of you digging this up think it is, it is not some evil company letting some kid die to save money. You're heart is in the right place, you're mind isn't... such is the way of Digg.
Some of you people are complete morons though. You're digging down people explain what the real story is. Why? What is moral about digging down the truth? - siszam, on 12/26/2007, -24/+42The girl died because Cigna called the transplant "experimental" so they could deny care and save money. Transplants are not experimental. Insurance companies do that all the time and usually only reverse their decision when publicity or lawsuits are involved. I saw it first hand when I worked in health care. You don't know what you're talk about at all. I don't think yo even read the article.
- XMashedPotatoX, on 12/26/2007, -6/+2458 comments and no one has told me how Ron Paul will make everything happy...
- shorn, on 12/26/2007, -1/+18Try facts, assmunch. The government didn't decide how insurance companies should be run. Insurance companies decided that and get the goverment to go along by paying them to. Using money they took from us while not providing coverage. They may not have done anything illegal, but ask a million people + you and you will get a million people agreeing Cigna was in the wrong ethically.
- Ajajadude, on 12/26/2007, -0/+17The thing is that every single insurance company denies people the coverage they pay for all the time. A lot of the time it's for simple procedures or even just an office visit. Hell, there have been insurance companies that would take claims that they received and immediately filed them in the paper shredder. In the end this really is not about the girl's life. It's about a system that will pay some schmuck millions of dollars to sit in an office while systematically denying people the service they take their money for.
How would you feel if you had to pay for your gas in advance only to be told when you need to fill up that you can't have any? Oh, yeah, and we're keeping your money, too. - xenoploid, on 12/26/2007, -6/+23I'm sure when Ron Paul is elected, and Medicaid and Medicare are eliminated, the free market will prevent incidents like these from occurring through competition among...insurance corporations....errr, wait...
- SaladCactusKing, on 12/26/2007, -9/+25Insurance Companies are terrible, but this story is ridiculous. She had already been in a coma for a long time, and the Leukemia was sure to kill her anyway. Isn't that a waste of a liver that could be used on someone who actually has a chance of survival?
- martinbogo, on 12/26/2007, -7/+23
Well, you certainly read up on this case, didn't you. *NOT*
Cigna had approved the transplant. On the day they denied the payment the:
a) doctor in charge of that patient's care
b) doctor in charge of that department
c) head of the hospital
d) unrelated doctor who reviewed the patient's condition
All, signed of on the medical feasibility and medical necessity of the transplant. In other words, the insurance carrier decided it was more qualified to make the decision than multiple qualified medical care personnel.
There is nothing selfish about saving a human life. There is nothing wrong with fighting for every chance for a normal one. At the time the payment was denied, the girl was a very good candidate for the surgery, not in a coma, quite awake and intelligent.
Don't go spouting statistics, especially right out of your ass. Getting the percentages from an AP news article does not count. Given how hard it is to find a donor, if the doctors are willing to perform the surgery, that means the decision passed some stringent tests for survivability. - nathanbrisk, on 12/26/2007, -11/+27According to the article--"Cigna had refused to cover a liver transplant . . . only to reconsider at the last minute when the girl's parents had already decided to take her off life support." The parents made their own decision.
There is more to this story than the sensationalism implies. - mattw, on 12/26/2007, -2/+16I don't think that was what he was saying. Just that the liver should have gone to someone who had a better chance than this unfortunate girl.
- vanzan, on 12/26/2007, -5/+18In order to keep prices down, hospitals need to come to their senses and reduce prices for everyone. They are way over charging EVERYONE
- pintomp3, on 12/26/2007, -2/+15the invisible hand of the free market will perform the surgery.
- FKnight, on 12/26/2007, -1/+13@ginsengbomb:
Except that's not Cigna's call. Why must the insurance company be involved in the decision making process as to /who/ gets a liver from the donation pool? Those decisions are made by other people. According to TFA, a liver became available. The patient's doctor said a transplant was necessary. I'd be curious if the actual doctor involved was part of Cigna's "external experts." - maddla, on 12/26/2007, -5/+17Dear Damien,
In light of your recent request of a liver transplant procedure, Cigna will be denying your coverage. We understand your dilemma of a life or death situation but these procedures are "experimental" and you really are not that important of a person anyway. We cannot allow our corporation to make under 12 billion this year. The presidents son needs a 3rd house.
I am sure you understand.
boo ***** hoo. Deal with it.
Yours Truly,
Cigna - ybfree, on 12/26/2007, -4/+16Another case that proves national health care is needed.
For those who are arguing on the side of the company: May you NEVER have a person you love ever be in this position.
I've never read such cold hearted madness in my life! - adwarereport, on 12/26/2007, -0/+11This wouldn't have denied anyone a liver. It was from a live donor. You can donate half of your liver - it will regenerate.
it was a pointless, needless death. Horrible. - Ekdog, on 12/26/2007, -1/+11I had to have an operation recently here in Spain. I spent a week in the hospital. The cost: 0. Do my taxes pay for this? Yes, and I'm happy to pay those taxes. I couldn't care less if an unemployed person gets the same treatment. What would infuriate me would be to see private insurance companies making a profit off of health care like they do in the States and millions of people with no insurance. THAT is sick.
- Ajajadude, on 12/26/2007, -4/+14One can only hope that there will be a big enough backlash from this that things will actually start changing. Of course, the only way it can change is if the states and/or the federal government can put together some kind of comprehensive universal health care system with the rights of the patients in mind. Until the for-profit corporations are no longer running the insurance show, I fear you may be right...
- douggmc, on 12/26/2007, -4/+14No ... wrong. The whole point is about who makes the decision. Cigna MADE THE DECISION. The decision should have been made by her physicians and guardians (parents). That is the root problem ... the inherent conflict of interest with a company chartered to make profit AND make medical decisions (which impact that profit).
Further, if Cigna was in contract with these physicians / hospital ... then one law that could be made is that contracted physicians have the ultimate say/decision. The insurance company must pay ... no questions asked. - minoss, on 12/26/2007, -7/+17Thank you. The sensationalism here is disgusting. This girl was terminally ill and was currently brain dead. To give a liver to her as opposed to the hundreds of other people on the list, many of whom will die before receiving one, is just as greedy.
Would all these people be so outspoken with the headline "Boy dies before receiving implant because it was given to brain dead girl." - stanleyford, on 12/26/2007, -5/+15The natural, emotional response for most people that hear this story is to condemn the behavior of Cigna's decision-makers. However, there are really two questions we have to answer before we can come to a conclusion: Firstly, did Cigna fail to meet its obligations as the Sarkisyan's insurer? Secondly, did Cigna have a moral obligation to approve the medical procedure (even if it had no legal obligation to do so)?
I'm not qualified to answer the first question, although more information will doubtless come to light as this story continues to be covered. I think most people would agree that, if Cigna did have a contractual obligation to approve the procedure, it should have done so in good faith (this is also my opinion). However, I don't think there's enough information yet to determine whether or not Cigna failed to fulfill its legal obligations, so let's leave that question for now.
The second question is, did Cigna have a moral obligation to approve the procedure, even if it had no legal obligation to do so? From the outraged tone of the comments here, it seems like most people believe so. (That is, it appears that many people are angry not because they believe Cigna failed in its legal obligations, but because they believe it failed in its moral obligations.) Again, this is the natural response to this situation. However, we should examine what that belief really means:
It's important to understand that when we talk of "Cigna," we only do so as shorthand for the people who are actually involved. Cigna as an abstract entity is no more capable of behaving badly than is a stone, and can bear no more responsibility for bad behavior than a stone can. When people say that Cigna should have approved the procedure, they mean that the decision-makers at Cigna should have approved the procedure. When they say that Cigna has behaved badly, they mean that the decision-makers at Cigna have behaved badly. Cigna is just a thing, and things can't behave badly: only the people that control that thing can.
Extending this reasoning, when people imply that Cigna had a moral obligation to pay for the procedure, they mean that the shareholders, employees, and customers (other insured people) of Cigna had a moral obligation to pay for the procedure, in terms of lower profits (for the shareholders), lower salaries or fewer new hires (for the employees), or higher premiums (for its customers). When you start talking about the real people involved instead of abstract entities, you can't avoid asking other questions: By what reasoning were the shareholders, employees, and customers of Cigna morally obligated to pay for Sarkisyan's care? If these people were morally obligated to pay for her care, were her family and friends also similarly obligated? If the decision-makers at Cigna should be held culpable for failing to pay for her care (even if they did not fail their legal obligations), should her family and friends also be held culpable? What makes one group of people (the shareholders, employees, and customers of Cigna) morally responsible for paying for her care and not another group (family, friends, even you and I)? Why wasn't I morally obligated to pay for Sarkisyan's care, and thus morally responsible for her death? Why weren't you?
When you start thinking about the ramifications of these questions, it gets a little harder to point the finger. Certainly a tragedy occurred, but who's to blame (if anybody)?
I'm not trying to exculpate the decision-makers of Cigna. I'm not trying to defend or blame anybody. I'm just trying to point out that our natural, emotional responses may gloss over a more complicated truth. - johndi, on 12/26/2007, -7/+17I'm not saying it is wrong or evil. I'm saying my government could ***** up a wet dream. The reason our system is in such a sorry state now with the HMOs is due to government intervention. Now they are talking about is forcing us to buy insurance from the same companies that are screwing us over. Just how is that going to fix anything?
- MXracer250f, on 12/26/2007, -8/+18Anyone smart enough to read the article would've already realized it was pointless to give her a liver transplant. She had irreversible leukemia and was on life support, so her chances of living were pretty infinitesimal anyways. Why give this liver to someone whose going to die! Save the liver for someone who can use it instead of dying a few months down the line. The insurance company did the right thing, and ***** whoever says otherwise.
- kublerross, on 12/26/2007, -0/+10i love how someone dugg down proper statistics.
- bigboy101011, on 12/26/2007, -0/+10where i am just the ambulance ride cost $600
- Marzuk, on 12/26/2007, -3/+13The lesson here is not that a National Healthcare system is automatically bad, just that ANY system has its problems, especially if it is managed poorly. No system is perfect.
- cannarymburns, on 12/26/2007, -2/+11thats not what that 65% 6 month rate means at all... they don't drop dead at 6 months, the 1 year, 5 year, 10 year, etc rates might be lower, or even much lower than 65%, but they're certainly not 0...
- relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -10/+19Private health insurance is a ***** scam.
- Ajajadude, on 12/26/2007, -2/+11But, you and everyone else have no idea what might have happened in those 6 months. This wasn't a Terri Schiavo case where the girl's brain was all but liquefied with a zero chance of any sort of recovery.
I wonder who got the liver that could have gone to the girl. An alcoholic who drank their organs to destruction, perhaps? Of course, it could have been someone who had some kind of accident and needed a new liver, who knows. But, none of that should matter. Doctors are supposed to keep people alive. You don't think her doctors didn't contemplate that a liver could have been used by someone else? - Gerz1219, on 12/26/2007, -3/+12Excellent comments above. Just remember that if this exact same situation had occurred in a country with universal healthcare, we'd be reading about the heartless government bureaucrat who denied her claim due to missing paperwork while a healthy liver became available next door. Whether it's the evil government or an evil insurance company, somebody is going to be the mustache-twirling villain who killed a teenager.
- Zap2, on 12/26/2007, -2/+10Or just get rid of them all together!
- thatsmyaibo, on 12/26/2007, -2/+10I agree with you completely. My uncle died on a transplant waiting list for a liver. A transplant that would have kept him alive for years. Unfortunately he passed before he got a chance at a transfer. This girl had a slim chance of survival with the transplant and was kept alive by machines. The transplant should have gone to someone with a higher rate of success.
- Murrabbit, on 12/26/2007, -1/+9How insurance companies make money:
1. You pay them when you're healthy.
2. They weasel out of paying the bill when you're sick.
3. ???*
4. Proffit
*You die from lack of treatment. - dsiv, on 12/26/2007, -2/+10Good lord, do people really not understand that assigning a certain 6 month survival rate does not mean that the patient is going to drop dead at 6 months and 1 day. The long term (say 5, 10yr) survival rates were probably significantly lower than the 6 month survival rate, but that does not at all imply that she had "no more than six months to live anyway." Seriously, why do people keep saying this?
- shorn, on 12/26/2007, -2/+10Yes, I'm sure the insurance company is paying to preserve that liver in whoever was dying to give it up to wait for a more worthy recipient.
NOT. -
Show 51 - 100 of 307 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is