What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
978 Comments
- Itazura, on 12/21/2007, -39/+476Good thing we have better health insurance than all those universal healthcare countries....oh wait...
- Sultana, on 12/21/2007, -17/+315This is so sad. It's just maddening that her healthcare provider would not pay for it, then get pressure from the media, and finally concede and "make a special exception" (or some bull like that) but by that time it's too late.
I read about this case yesterday on consumerist.com, and was infuriated by it yesterday. If this isn't a call for a major overhaul of our healthcare system, I don't know what is. Hopefully the people in congress and our presidential nominees will stand up and take notice of this case. - inactive, on 12/21/2007, -23/+264***** scumbags. Yeah, good idea to leave health care up to big business.
- chijim70, on 12/21/2007, -21/+214I think healthcare should be a municipality like the firemen and police and public schooling. It is an absolute need for all, not a ***** service you should be fortunate to get or afford. I hate jags who whine about the potential cost when simultaneously they think nothing of the billions to fund a pointless war and studies about why frogs have spots. This ***** really needs to be fixed and people need to be a lot more mad about it.
- geekmansworld, on 12/21/2007, -15/+158This is what happens when you make healthcare a for-profit industry.
- hoghug, on 12/21/2007, -10/+122Cigna is my insurance, too. I get it through my employer. If I had any choice in the matter I'd cancel it this instant. At least I know now that if me, my wife or son ever become seriously ill, all I have to do is rally a protest, get media coverage and hope that Cigna takes notice before any of us die. See, the free market works just fine.
- KyloOb, on 12/21/2007, -13/+99As a resident of the UK, this is terrible. People should be treated by the health service as patients, not customers. If this was the case with the fire service, the police or any other public service, there would be riots. However, with some swift and effective propaganda a lot of powerful people have been deluded. Come over to Britain I say, get a boob job while you're here.
- 5xSTUN, on 12/21/2007, -19/+104Not having universal healthcare is a small price to pay for keeping gay people from being allowed to be married to each other. Having complete corporate control over our laws and government is the price we pay for having a government that safeguards the ability of religious fanatics to dictate public policy, so quit your whining. Or, actually, we should probably be whining a whole lot more loudly.
- inactive, on 12/21/2007, -29/+101I think they could've come up with a much more sensational article. How about "insurance company kills teenager"?
The kid had leuchemia and was in a vegetative state. That liver transplant wouldn't have done much. Maybe leave her in a vegetative state for a few more months.
They would've probably not done this type of operation even with a universal healthcare plan. It's a waste of organs. That liver will probably used to save a kid that will be able to live a normal life, not just barely be alive and unconscious for a few months. I think those doctors are more immoral than that insurance company.
That insurance company didn't give that kid leuchemia and didn't cause a liver failure. They just decided not to allocate funds to perform a surgery that would most probably serve no purpose.
A vegetative state is not a simple choma. It's being brain dead. - br0ck, on 12/21/2007, -5/+60"There are incredibly difficult decisions that must be made"
And the person that should be making that decision is the doctor, not the insurance company. In this case, the doctors determined that a liver would save her life and the insurer who is not qualified or in a position to make a proper medical decision, made a decision based purely on cost. - KidTechno, on 12/21/2007, -15/+66Sicko
- takamalak, on 12/21/2007, -2/+46At least the stockholders are happy.
- brstilson, on 12/21/2007, -9/+52I always wonder what those cable news pundits are talking about when they say universal healthcare is bad because your health decisions will be decided by "some government bureaucrat and not a doctor" when under our current system, that exact same thing happens, except it's an insurance company bureaucrat.
- Caspercreep, on 12/21/2007, -25/+67It's a ***** shame man. What a scam the U.S is in every way.
- AlvesLopes, on 12/21/2007, -21/+61Only in America...
- yodaj007, on 12/21/2007, -8/+47That's a myth. I know several Canadians and even someone from Britain (living in the states currently). They have all told me the exact *opposite* of that FUD you're regurgitating. You've been duped by the people who don't want universal health care here.
- inactive, on 12/21/2007, -8/+47So do you know that for a fact or are you simply talking out of your ass?
- shark615, on 12/21/2007, -48/+87This is such a baised, emotion based article it is crazy it is being dugg and considered a reliable source.
The girl was comatose and in a bad way. A new liver may have kept her alive for a little bit longer but probably not much and there was no medical proof it would help. The girl died from leukemia an complications from a bone marrow transplant not her insurance company making a non-emtional decision. - mcgrew, on 12/21/2007, -2/+37"Over 6,000 Americans die every year waiting for transplants, and the shortage continues to get larger with no end in sight."
From http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/cohen2.html
what's your point? - mufasa, on 12/21/2007, -7/+40Universal / Free healthcare > going to war every third year.
- NSMike, on 12/21/2007, -12/+44FTA - "Despite the reversal, CIGNA said in an e-mail statement before she died that there was a lack of medical evidence showing the procedure would work in Nataline's case."
Despicable. - neoform, on 12/21/2007, -0/+32That's due to lack of available organs, that has nothing to do with the lack of money to pay for the operation.
Patients rarely die waiting for surgery that they need in Canada since critical surgeries are given immediate priority, which is the main reason waiting lists for non critical surgeries are so long.
The only downside to universal healthcare is when you have a non-critical problem, like a bad knee, which might mean you have to wait up to a year to get it fixed. People are certainly NOT dying as a result of Canada's healthcare system. - reed311, on 12/21/2007, -2/+34Government merely foots the bill. It has nothing to do with them denying transplants, etc.
- roadracersweet, on 12/21/2007, -4/+35Talking out of his ass. I personally know of situations like this close to me, as well as having friends in the healthcare system Canada. This person would have had the transplant the min the doctors determined it was needed. The wait time in a case like this is the same as the US, which is the time it takes to find the donor. In Canada the system is designed based on need. If you are going to die, you get it same day. If you need a hangnail removed, you might wait months(because all the people who have serious conditions get ahead of you and bump you down). You will never have to wait for something serious, however just because you whine about it, doesn't MAKE it serious. This would never happen in Canada unless there was some serious screw up or no donor. In the US, you get the best care from the best doctors and institutions, for the most money., If you dont have the big bucks, you no longer have the best care in the world. Check you health plan, whatever is not covered, I promise you is covered for me. Thats the difference. This is not a case of donor, so all these stats are bogus, that hppens everywhere, this is a case of being denied the procedure. HUGE difference. If you dont understand why, you have no business commenting on this and defending a morally corrupt system.
- MrZaiko, on 12/21/2007, -4/+34(Merry Christmas, No New Liver for You) thats how Wired called this article
- SammyJr, on 12/21/2007, -0/+30It looked like these people died waiting for donors. What does the Canadian Health Care system have to do with donors? They can't make people die so they can harvest their organs.
- sk11, on 12/21/2007, -2/+32Why exactly couldn't private healthcare exist alongside public healthcare? It happens here in Britain and in many other countries, so why not in America? After all, don't you have private and public schools coexisting over there?
- chris9902, on 12/21/2007, -0/+29just so everyone knows: boob jobs aren't covered by the NHS because they are cosmetic. We're not that stupid.
- imants, on 12/21/2007, -16/+45Just so everyone's clear on this...
first of all, I'll be the first one to agree that healthcare system in this country needs much reform.
Having said that, those who are aware of the case know that the liver transplant would not improved her survivability. She would have died from leukemia anyways. So they didn't want to "waste" a liver on her knowing that she wasn't going to live when they could have given it to someone else. The only reason why Cigna changed their minds isn't because of medical reasons but because of sociopolitical reasons.
So.... go ahead and digg me down now. - bbqsalad, on 12/21/2007, -26/+55If it wasnt for Cigna I would have died this past summer.. They covered 500k$ worth of surgery's, icu stays, rooms, meds and everything else. All I have to do is pay 5000$ out of that 500,000$. I personally love Cigna. I pay 80$ a month through my employer. Very sad this happened but I can verify that most of the time it does work for people.
- zgoos, on 12/21/2007, -10/+38But the market isn't free. You said it right there. You don't have any choice in the matter. If you could drop a crappy company like a bad habit, then companies wouldn't be pulling this crap. That's why you should be able to make the decisions about your company, not your employer or the government.
- deeboe, on 12/21/2007, -5/+33The health insurance industry is the biggest scam in the history of mankind.
- MrWhite7, on 12/21/2007, -3/+30There's a difference between health CARE and health INSURANCE.
- robberry, on 12/21/2007, -2/+29The question of who should get the liver is a legitimate one, but it is also irrelevant to this discussion. It's not Cigna's job to decide if a patient needs a transplant-- that job belongs to the patient's doctors. It's also not Cigna's job to decide how best to allocate the limited supply of available organs-- that job belongs to UNOS[*]. It *is* the job of Cigna to pay for life-saving medical treatment, in accordance with their contract and with the law. Cigna, however, chose not to do their job, and a teenage girl is dead as a result. Please do not try to defend Cigna's evil actions by confusing the issue.
[*] UNOS: The United Network for Organ Sharing, the non-profit organization established by Congress in 1984 that is responsible for allocating transplantable organs to patients. - MWeather, on 12/21/2007, -5/+29"So they didn't want to "waste" a liver on her knowing that she wasn't going to live when they could have given it to someone else."
The insurance company doesn't decide who gets livers. A bunch of people with a lot more medical experience than them decided it was a good idea. They have to right exerting any influence whatsoever over that decision, nor are they qualified to. - offspring06, on 12/21/2007, -5/+29He's talking out of his ass. I'm Canadian and we have universal healthcare. If it is a life saving surgery you do not have to wait too long.
- adwarereport, on 12/21/2007, -2/+26My son had a heart transplant two years ago. Here are some facts that should hopefully dispel the serious misinformation in these comments:
1. This procedure typically costs millions, when you include the post-op and medicine. Ours cost over $2 million. It is an extreme financial loss to the insurance company and you can bet there are people working there who have no qualms about denying coverage if they can find any half-ass reason to whatsoever.
2. Doctors often induce a coma in these situations, not only to give the patient a better window to get a transplant, but also to prevent psychological and physical damage.
3. I can absolutely, 100% assure you that some of the doctors there thought it would help, while others thought that it wouldn't. Transplant doctors always disagree with each other, but they don't state it openly (the doctors on my son's case advised us to give up, but another doctor went behind their backs and told us to change hospitals because he thought there was a good chance a transplant would work. He was right). This is ALWAYS the case. The insurance company went and found the doctors who thought that it wouldn't to back up their case. They would ignore the doctors who thought that it would.
Bottom line - the insurance companies should NOT be allowed to deny a transplant. EVER. Yes, there will be some instances where the transplant doesn't work, but nobody can predict this with certainty ahead of time. If there is even an inkling of a chance it could work, then they should do it.
BTW - my son was not only in a medically-induced coma, but he was the patient who survived the longest amount of time on ECMO (life-support) in my state. He could not breathe on his own. Typically, patients' organs begin to shut down in two weeks when they are on life-support. He not only came out of it, but the organ damage he suffered (there was some) completely reversed itself. NOBODY saw that coming. The statistics didn't support it. Every doctor there said he would probably suffer permanent brain, liver, and lung damage. None of that happened. Denying coverage to these people should be a crime and someone should be locked up for it. - Spuy767, on 12/21/2007, -23/+47The question is, would the liver have saved her life, or would she have died in either case taking a perfectly good organ with her that may have saved someone else's life? It's not all kittens and rainbows out there people. There are incredibly difficult decisions that must be made and unfortunately, sometimes, there are peope who suffer. Digg me down, it;'s going to happen, but put yourself in the shoes of someone who needs only a liver. What if this liver was given to that young girl, and she passes away a few days later.
- crazydiode, on 12/21/2007, -15/+38who the ***** are they to decide what kind of treatment we should go to? fukcing leechy bastards...
- Sublime059, on 12/21/2007, -3/+25Better them than big business homes. It's just a fact.
- DephexTwin, on 12/21/2007, -2/+23Speaking of being emotionally charged...
- slumslum, on 12/21/2007, -4/+25Makes you wonder why you pay for medical insurance if they can just deny you when you have a legitimated life or death claim.
- br0ck, on 12/21/2007, -3/+24Most of us can't afford to choose our insurer as they are mostly paid for and selected by our employers. If you can afford to pay for your own and start doing research you'll realize that all of them are pulling this nonsense and there aren't any that you can trust.
Insurers make a huge profit by denying a transplant or any medical care so are strongly motivated to only provide the bare minimum care possible. Socialized medicine does not have a profit mechanism and are motivated to treat instead of being motivated not to treat. - roodammy44, on 12/21/2007, -3/+24@unreg
I think the health companies are more about the return on the dollar for their shareholders.
I really don't think "The money is better spent on these other 10 needy people" applies to them. It's more like "the money is better spent on the company director's new yacht".
I don't understand why americans can't see doctors in the same light as police, firemen or the army - they should be there to protect all of us. - MrARPA, on 12/21/2007, -1/+22The US health insurance program is vastly more expensive than typical European universal health care, go and check the figures.
- Godlike, on 12/21/2007, -21/+40And when it comes to life and death, that is a problem inherent in the system that must be corrected or overcome. Health care and thus, life and death, should not be left for capitalism to decide, YOU GIMPY *****.
- SammyJr, on 12/21/2007, -10/+29Yeah, and too bad for those it doesn't, right?
- thotpoizn, on 12/21/2007, -4/+23Here's the AP link if you prefer to avoid raw spammage:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hFp8DsNC_gJwb9q ... - MWeather, on 12/21/2007, -3/+21So you think private medical care is banned in every industrialized country but our own? How, given your lack of even the basic understanding of what is being discussed, did you even mange to form an opinion about this? It's almost as if you're parroted something you heard without bother to spend even 10 seconds on google finding out if it was true.
- tgarza17, on 12/21/2007, -1/+19"Doctors at UCLA determined she needed a transplant and sent a letter to CIGNA Healthcare on Dec. 11." Her doctors determined she needed this. It is irrelevant whether the treatment would have been in vain or not. Health insurance companies have no business second-guessing doctor's decisions. If your doctor says you need something, and you have the coverage to pay it, that should be the end of it. We have a separation of powers in the government - a system of checks and balances - for a reason. I agree the article was written in a way to provoke emotion. It seems like it would have been a waste of a liver. The real issue is: who gets to decide what treatment you get? Your doctor, or the for-profit corporation who will retain more profit if you die?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 986 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is