Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Teen dies after insurance nixes transplant funds
rawstory.com — A 17-year old died just hours after her health insurance company reversed its decision not to pay for a liver transplant that doctors said the girl needed. (video)
veredictum- 3883 diggs
- digg it
- morningmatters, on 12/21/2007, -82/+19*sigh*. I use Cigna for dental insurance and according to the receptionist the company actually cover a bit more than other companies.
- 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 ... - Charlotte_Web, on 12/21/2007, -3/+12On a similar note, Dr. Arthur Matas, a transplant surgeon and the former president of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, is trying to reform the system for kidney transplants, but is being met with a lot of resistance. The demand for kidneys far outstrips supply, and thousands of people die each year from complications while waiting for one. The cost to put someone on dialysis is quite expensive, especially long-term.
Dr. Matas is proposing that the government and the insurance companies buy kidneys from donors, as an incentive to increase the supply. Based on the savings, he estimates that they could spend $95k per donor (some of that would be administration costs, and the rest could be paid out). Being the government, there are a number of ways that they could compensate donors: write a check for the full amount, offer tax breaks, escrow the money in a college fund for the donor's children, and so on.
ABC News ran a couple of articles on the issue:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/Health/story?id=2977 ...
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3902508&page=1 - Dragular, on 12/22/2007, -9/+10holy ***** why the sudden onslaught of buries? He's got a good point. Cigna, United Healthcare and Blue Cross Blue Shield are the top 3 when it comes to coverage... if she'd been on some "we take eeeeeeeverrrrrryyyyybody!" health insurance or (sadly worse) government insurance, she probably wouldn't have even been allowed to go into the hospital until she jumped through ten years worth of hoops.
- HYPEractive, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1wrong. It's called triage...
- acidbass, on 12/22/2007, -1/+2govt health care is bad?
Have you ever heard of a place called: Europe?- Dragular, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Yes. I've heard of it. I've also heard that the US isn't part of it, and in that non-European country the government insurance sucks. It's called Medicare and Medicaid. Ever heard of it?
- acidbass, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1yeah, you dont have it and thats why to you it sucks, But ask anyone who receives medicare and medicaid. They tend to like it alot. Free health care should be a necessity , not a luxury.
- Dragular, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Yes. I've heard of it. I've also heard that the US isn't part of it, and in that non-European country the government insurance sucks. It's called Medicare and Medicaid. Ever heard of it?
- thotpoizn, on 12/21/2007, -4/+23Here's the AP link if you prefer to avoid raw spammage:
- Sultana, on 12/21/2007, -17/+314This 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.- crazydiode, on 12/21/2007, -15/+38who the ***** are they to decide what kind of treatment we should go to? fukcing leechy bastards...
- mooseontheloose, on 12/21/2007, -57/+24You're free to pay for it yourself out of pocket, dumbass. The company doesn't owe you anything outside of what your contract with them states.
- 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 *****.
- unreg, on 12/21/2007, -31/+6The slippery slope is where to draw the line. Viewed from a buisness point, it's about return on the dollar. If I can make ten people's lives better with the money I would have spent on one risky low return procedure, is it justified.
Alternatively, isn't one life worth the expenditure of every possibility to save.
If I have a policy that covers X, should I expect Y? - mooseontheloose, on 12/21/2007, -29/+6In your opinion. Sorry, your opinion is not law, nor should it be.
- 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. - Flummoxer, on 12/21/2007, -2/+4Because they aren't government employees...
- Godlike, on 12/21/2007, -3/+11Your success at capitalism should never, ever determine the value placed on your life.
- Godlike, on 12/21/2007, -6/+19Ah, oh, really? Someone disagrees? Lets try this on for size:
OPERATOR: "911, what is your emergency?"
WOMAN: "Help, there is someone in my house downstairs breaking things and cursing, I think they have a weapon and I heard gunshots! I am too old to really get around much anymore and I need help!"
O: "Okay ma'am, was this call preapproved by your security insurance company?"
W: "No, I can't afford the cost since my husband died, please send help!"
O: "Okay well we do have options available, but there may be a waiting period required to secure funds or you will be required to make a deposit upon arrival of the officers."
W: "I don't have money, but I need help! I am in danger! I could be killed!"
O: "I'm sorry ma'am, currently without coverage we can only dispatch a security patrol who cannot enter the residence. If you require armed officers we will need a two thousand dollar deposit and proof of homeowners insurance..."
What parts of that sound right to any of you? Why should it be right with healthcare? - archiesteel, on 12/21/2007, -1/+7"In your opinion. Sorry, your opinion is not law, nor should it be."
Three-quarters of Americans disagree with you. If you believe in democracy, then it should in fact be law. - mooseontheloose, on 12/21/2007, -6/+6If any of you can point out where in the Constitution any of these rights to health care are enumerated I'll be glad to read it.
Oh you can't? Well, that sucks. Change the Constitution or stop bitching you little babies. Do I have a right to free housing, too? Don't people need that to live? So I should, of course, get a free house!
Although the Founders loved the idea of police so much that they included the 2nd Amendment for fun, I guess? - andrew1193, on 12/22/2007, -4/+2"OPERATOR: "911, what is your emergency?"
WOMAN: "Help, there is someone in my house downstairs breaking things and cursing, I think they have a weapon and I heard gunshots! I am too old to really get around much anymore and I need help!""
Even if police were private, this would never happen, for obvious reasons. And even with government police, there's still a great chance that the caller would be harmed by the assailant, or that the assailant would escape. Courts have ruled that the police have no duty to protect you.
"Godlike" is a simpleton.
- unreg, on 12/21/2007, -31/+6The slippery slope is where to draw the line. Viewed from a buisness point, it's about return on the dollar. If I can make ten people's lives better with the money I would have spent on one risky low return procedure, is it justified.
- sanman, on 12/21/2007, -5/+11hey moose-brain, how about making basic policing/security a pay service too?
Then when somebody's robbing ur ass, you can call the cops and be told to ***** off, since your wallet is gone and don't have any money!- andrew1193, on 12/21/2007, -2/+8Sounds good to me, since the cops can already tell you to "***** off", as courts have ruled that they have no duty to protect people.
- Godlike, on 12/21/2007, -3/+3'Those' rulings refer to the burden of police to proactively protect people, i.e. patrols and such, they do have to enforce the law and investigate violations of the law and someone robbing or harming you is breaking the law.
- andrew1193, on 12/21/2007, -4/+3"'Those' rulings refer to the burden of police to proactively protect people, i.e. patrols and such, they do have to enforce the law and investigate violations of the law and someone robbing or harming you is breaking the law."
Considering that it's the police and the State that prevent me from effectively defending myself from robbery and assault, I'd say your argument is worthless.
- martalli, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3I doubt the polcy spicifically refers to the exact condition the girl had. Instead, the insurance company is making their own determination as to what is medically necessary. From their legalistic point of view, it is only the physician and patient making medical decisions. The truth of the matter is that the insurance company is deciding what is appropriate if the therapy is expensive.
- HYPEractive, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3THAT'S WHY PAY MONEY OUT OF YOUR POCKET FOR HEALTH INSURANCE... IT'S INSURANCE FOR YOUR HEALTH!!!
- objectcode, on 12/26/2007, -1/+1mooseontheloose is right. insurance is there to take your money, not pay your bill. damn freeloaders
- 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 *****.
- Double0Doug, on 12/21/2007, -32/+11Her Health insurance provider did not deny her treatment, they denied her coverage. The family only has itself to blame if they refused the treatment just because the insurance company said it wouldn’t pay.
Cigna has put them selves into a pretty bad situation with this decision. By saying that they would cover something that they normally would not, they have basically invalidated a part of their own policy limitations.
I’m not saying it is good or right, but I don’t see how you can blame her death on an insurance company.- cdahlkvist, on 12/21/2007, -7/+17ANd since the almighty dollar rules and her family didn't have the money to pay for the treatment it wasn't an option.
If you are paying for insurance you should expect them to pay for your healthcare costs. When it comes to life or death the insurance company needs to back off and just allow the treatment and pay if it can be shown that said treatment has a likelihood of saving your life.
It's not like she wanted treatment from some South American witch doctor. She wanted an experimental treatment that doctors said could very possibly save her life.- Double0Doug, on 12/21/2007, -10/+10Are you saying that it’s the doctors’ fault because they wanted to be paid?
A liver transplant isn’t a life saving treatment for someone who has bone cancer. Cigna’s decision states that they denied coverage because it couldn’t be shown that the transplant had any likelihood of savings the patient’s life. - Speed, on 12/21/2007, -1/+6Double0Doug,
"Doctors at UCLA determined she needed a transplant and sent a letter to CIGNA Healthcare on Dec. 11." So we're supposed to ignore what the doctors say and listen to a ***** businessman about what will or will not save a persons life? - martalli, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3Liver transplants are not experimental therapy. The only downside in this case was that she was in a vegetative state. She may very well not have recovered from the vegetative state after the transplant. It strikes me, though, that if the company had approved the transplant straightaway, she may have had a much better chance at recovery.
- KOSmurfy, on 12/22/2007, -1/+2"If you are paying for insurance you should expect them to pay for your healthcare costs."
How ignorant. If that were the case, all health insurance premiums would be double or triple what they are now.
- Double0Doug, on 12/21/2007, -10/+10Are you saying that it’s the doctors’ fault because they wanted to be paid?
- s0nicfreak, on 12/21/2007, -9/+5@cdahlkvist
It's not like they had to pay everything upfront before they surgery would have been done. If they didn't have the money they'd go into debt, but so what if they have their daughter? Oh wait, they still wouldn't have had their daughter.- Ajajadude, on 12/21/2007, -4/+11For one thing, you don't know it wouldn't have saved her life. It's better to have tried and failed then to never have tried at all, especially when it's a matter of life or death. Without the treatment, she was guaranteed to die. Even if the treatment would have only given her a .01% chance of keeping her alive, that's better odds than doing nothing at all.
And I do believe most health care facilities will treat you like a bank treats a person looking for a loan: are you capable of paying them back. A facility won't go ahead with an expensive procedure if they don't think you'll be able to pay them for the service. - s0nicfreak, on 12/21/2007, -4/+4@Ajajadude
*****, the health care facility employees get paid wither you pay or not, so they don't really care. I have flat out said I wasn't able to pay for health care before (once years ago when I was in a car accident when I didn't have health insurance and was between jobs - and no, I did not have the money for a car, I was riding in someone else's car), but I still got it. If a person can't pay for health care, the debt is sold to a collection agency and then they recover the money from you. Health care facilities may give higher priority to people with insurance because it payment is quicker and easier; but it is against the law to refuse medical care to someone because they can't pay.
She had leukemia. Unless it was a magical, leukemia-curing liver, it wasn't going to save her life. She was guaranteed to die either way, this liver was just the difference between dieing today, and being in a coma for another week. - archiesteel, on 12/21/2007, -2/+9If the girl had been Canadian, she'd still be alive *and* her parents wouldn't be in debt. Suck it, free market drones!
- Speed, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you had a medical degree, go right the ***** ahead and explain why the doctors who treated her are wrong then. There was no guarantee that she would die if she got the liver transplant. If she was going to die either way, the doctors never would have even bothered to ask for approval to perform the transplant.
- martalli, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1When my family member needed a stem cell transplant at the university hospital, there were only two choices: either pay the entire cost upfront in cash, or have it approved by the insurance. In the middle of treatment for acute leukemia, the transplant was delayed for a month.
- Ajajadude, on 12/21/2007, -4/+11For one thing, you don't know it wouldn't have saved her life. It's better to have tried and failed then to never have tried at all, especially when it's a matter of life or death. Without the treatment, she was guaranteed to die. Even if the treatment would have only given her a .01% chance of keeping her alive, that's better odds than doing nothing at all.
- HYPEractive, on 12/22/2007, -2/+2They paid the insurance company to insure their health... they did not fulfill their end.
- cdahlkvist, on 12/21/2007, -7/+17ANd since the almighty dollar rules and her family didn't have the money to pay for the treatment it wasn't an option.
- mooseontheloose, on 12/21/2007, -57/+24You're free to pay for it yourself out of pocket, dumbass. The company doesn't owe you anything outside of what your contract with them states.
- DrNemo, on 12/21/2007, -31/+9You and other people as consumers can do more than congress on this issue. Don't contract with CIGNA and give them bad publicity. That's what the market is great for, if a service provider fails and disappoint consumers, you can shift to another provider. This wouldn't be the case with a government-planed healthcare system. The same kind of tragedies would happen with socialized healthcare but you wouldn't have an alternative at all, or maybe only a black-market priced illegal one.
- 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?
- mooseontheloose, on 12/21/2007, -28/+5Why should I have to pay for public if I want private?
- bjornski, on 12/21/2007, -5/+23Because it's part of being in this thing called a "society".
- andrew1193, on 12/21/2007, -12/+7"Because it's part of being in this thing called a "society"."
Society is the collection of voluntary interactions between people, not the collection of coerced interactions between people. - archiesteel, on 12/21/2007, -3/+5A large majority of Americans wants socialized medecine.
- mooseontheloose, on 12/21/2007, -7/+3A large majority of Americans are whackjob Christians and want a theocracy too. So I guess I should go out and get a Bible?
- HYPEractive, on 12/22/2007, -1/+6same reason why you pay for the police when you can go out and hire a private guard... or how your taxes allow us to have cheap mail service, but you can opt for FEDEX, UPS, or DHL
- mooseontheloose, on 12/21/2007, -28/+5Why should I have to pay for public if I want private?
- 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.
- 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.- Ajajadude, on 12/21/2007, -1/+12Even if you can afford to choose your own private insurer, their's no guarantee that insurer will cover you. I tried to get private insurance at the beginning of the year, but because of my medical history (what kind of meds I had taken), I was denied coverage.
- BlackBob, on 12/21/2007, -0/+7Same here.
- DrNemo, on 12/21/2007, -5/+6And you can't get out of this system? What is the benefit of paying insurance for an employer? Something strange here. You should be able to get your own insurance coverage and pay for it yourself. My employer didn't chose my health coverage but helps me pay for it by adding an extra on my salary. It's not the market system that is flawed but how healthcare works in the US. It would seem more logical for an employer to pay an extra to help his worker pay for insurance rather than pay a full health coverage. As for socialized medicine, since the government don't rely on consumer satisfaction and don't make profits, it has no incentive to care for you. A private provider can get out of business if it fails to satisfy consumer demand. It can lose many customers if it fails to provide care for a single one. A business must satisfy in order to prosper but not the government, who relies on taxation. So you can only dream of having caring government employees, but that's not very likely, and don't expect efficiency either. Look at how government manages things. Look at the war on drugs, the war in Irak, the monetary policy. Only failures and destruction ensues when the government takes care of things.
- senatorpjt, on 12/21/2007, -1/+6I think it's mostly because of group rates that the insurance company offers to give all employees of a certain company. The nice thing about public health care is that its the biggest group rate plan possible.
- archiesteel, on 12/21/2007, -2/+11"As for socialized medicine, since the government don't rely on consumer satisfaction and don't make profits, it has no incentive to care for you."
Wrong. In countries with socialized medecine, quality of care is an important electoral issue. It's in the politicians' interest to make sure people receive good care if they want to be re-elected. Not only that, but doctors actually take an oath to treat patients. Doctors and nurses in countires with socialized medecine are every bit as concerned with their patients' well-being as in the US.
"Look at the war on drugs, the war in Irak, the monetary policy. Only failures and destruction ensues when the government takes care of things."
Typical free-market ideological BS. Governments can do great things when people actually care to make sure they aren't corrupt. Introduce serious campaign financing reforms in the US and that'll clean up the government. It's your government, take control of it for Pete's sake! - Speed, on 12/21/2007, -1/+6"As for socialized medicine, since the government don't rely on consumer satisfaction and don't make profits, it has no incentive to care for you"
Right, just like government fire fighters have no incentive to put out fires and government paramedics have no incentive to get you to the hospital, right? Oh wait...
Since governments have no profit motive and no competition, they don't care if they have to take a loss to help a person. Remember, a happy patient is more likely to vote for whoever is in power at the time come next election.
- Ajajadude, on 12/21/2007, -1/+12Even if you can afford to choose your own private insurer, their's no guarantee that insurer will cover you. I tried to get private insurance at the beginning of the year, but because of my medical history (what kind of meds I had taken), I was denied coverage.
- 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?
- 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.
- thumperings, on 12/21/2007, -16/+2then they could reuse the liver again
- Chandon, on 12/21/2007, -1/+14My guess is that transplanting the same liver multiple times one right after another is a strictly bad idea.
- AJH16, on 12/21/2007, -0/+8If they put the liver in, it would either work or be rejected. If it is rejected, the body it was transplanted in to would reject it and attack it, effectivly destroying the liver. It would not be able to be put in to someone else.
- 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.- juve2004, on 12/21/2007, -2/+16thats damn right. the doctors know what they are doing...insurance companies are in business for the money not to help. Europe has a ***** load of taxes but if you need to go to the doctors you dont have to wait for some stupid piece of paper saying " sorry your not going to get what you need so enjoy the rest of your life" and if you think this will be change think again. most of the presidential candidates are crooks they are getting more money then you think just to leave things the way they are because its making money for many business. ***** it.
- Spuy767, on 12/21/2007, -5/+3Unfortunately, as callaus as it may seem often, a doctor's definition of life has an alltogether different meaning than some of ours. FOr a doctor to say, save her life, means to keep her heart beating, on life support or not. I hate to say it, but doctors are people too, and they are subject to the same greed as any of us, and if they say, "a liver will keep her alive," and she does stay alive, on life support, then what kind of life is that? And it is not beyond a doctor to suggest a course of action that pads their pocket. Truth is, whoever makes the decision, it has a chance of being the wrong one. Suffice to say, a doctor may or may not have your best wishes in mind, but an insurance company most certainly does not.
- Speed, on 12/21/2007, -0/+6It is not up to the doctor, the insurance company or you to decide if a persons quality of life is high enough or not. The doctors job is to keep you alive, and inform your family (should you be incapacitated) what that quality of life will be, and it's the patient's (or their families) decision if that quality if good enough or not. Unfortunately, parents will do whatever they can to keep their children alive and will not think about the quality of that life. Still, their kid, it should be their call, not some business' call.
- Gozchev, on 12/22/2007, -1/+0Dunno why you are dugg down... I think that you and Speed made a good points. Doctors, insurance companies and families will all have differing opinion about the quality of life for different reasons and motivations, but it should ultimately be up to the family. to decide
- whiskeymb, on 12/21/2007, -13/+7The article also says she had been in a vegetative state. Would a new liver have brought her out of that? I thought vegetative states were irreversible. If so, then I can understand why they denied the coverage. Why take a perfectly good liver and throw it away? I know that's rather heartless to say and I even have a hard time typing it, but what if she got the liver instead of your dying child and because of it your kid died, how'd you feel then?
- gwinerreniwg, on 12/21/2007, -0/+11"Doctors at the UCLA Medical Center actually signed a letter urging CIGNA to review its decision. Nataline Sarkisyan was sedated into a coma to stabilize her as the family filed appeals in the case."
She was in a vegetative state when she DIED because CIGNA took too long to approve the procedure!
- gwinerreniwg, on 12/21/2007, -0/+11"Doctors at the UCLA Medical Center actually signed a letter urging CIGNA to review its decision. Nataline Sarkisyan was sedated into a coma to stabilize her as the family filed appeals in the case."
- 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.- Waterrat, on 12/22/2007, -0/+7 Yup,the less care they give,the more money they make..That's the way it works.
- Ajajadude, on 12/21/2007, -0/+10Any organ transplant runs the risk of failure and even death. The liver this girl would've received could end up in someone who's body will reject the organ and this argument will become pointless. You do have a good point, but, as others have said, it's not up to the insurance company to make those decisions. That decision should be left up to the medical experts who have far more knowledge than some paper pushing scumbag.
- senatorpjt, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2I'm not sure about this, but I think it's considered unethical to give a liver transplant (due to the limited availability) to someone who will die anyway. I don't even think they'll give a liver transplant to someone who is an alcoholic.
- gwinerreniwg, on 12/21/2007, -1/+13This is more than a tragedy. It's an OUTRAGE! On Wednesday, I'm calling my HR department and switching my health insurance provider from CIGNA to our alternate provider before open enrollment closes at the end of the year. If you have the ability, I urge to to do the same. If you are insured by CIGNA, let your HR department know how you feel. Here's some more details from ABC News:
CIGNA first agreed to the liver transplant surgery and had secured a match weeks ago. After the teen, who was battling leukemia, received a bone marrow transplant from her brother, however, she suffered a lung infection, and the insurer backed away from what it felt had become too risky a procedure.
Geri Jenkins of the California Nurses Association said the Sarkisyan had insurance, and medical providers felt comfortable performing the medical procedure. In that situation, the the insurer should defer to medical experts, she said.
"They have insurance, and there's no reason that the doctors' judgment should be overrided by a bean counter sitting there in an insurance office," Jenkins said.
Doctors at the UCLA Medical Center actually signed a letter urging CIGNA to review its decision. Nataline Sarkisyan was sedated into a coma to stabilize her as the family filed appeals in the case.
During the middle of Thursday's protest, Hilda Sarkisyan fielded a call from CIGNA alerting her that her daughter's procedure had been given the green light. CIGNA released a statement announcing the company decided to make an exception in this rare and unusual case and we will provide coverage should she proceed with the requested liver transplant." he cheers, however, soon gave way to concern as the the hospital called to say that Nataline's health had taken a serious downturn. The family was forced to make the decision to take her off life support, and she later died. The battle to convince CIGNA to support the medical procedure had taken too long.- martalli, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Having that kind of choice over your healthcare plan is incredible. Unfortunately, I would guarantee you that any other health insurance provider would likely to the exact same thing.
- thumperings, on 12/21/2007, -16/+2then they could reuse the liver again
- imants, on 12/21/2007, -16/+44Just 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.- 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.- imants, on 12/21/2007, -12/+6The doctors who looked at her looked at her liver and said, essentially, "yep, she needs a new one." But that was looking just at the liver itself. Believe it or not, Cigna had many other independent doctors, some of the best in their field, look at the case and they ALL agreed that although a liver transplant was medically indicated, it was not appropriate given her other morbidities.
Cigna's not THAT dumb. They don't just wake up and say, "you know what? Let's piss off the whole world by killing a child."- bjornski, on 12/21/2007, -2/+11Insurance companies all have "independent" doctors who are h ired to tell you that you don't need the treatment your doctor recommends.
After my car accident, and going through my recuperation, I dealt with several of them. - martalli, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1"Some of them the best in their field". Believe me, if they were the greatest doctors in their field, they would be practicing medicine and making much more money than the insurance company pays. More importantly, the insurance companies will tell you up and down that they do not provide medical advice, but are merely reviewing the coverage in their policy.
They would never construe a doctor's review of the case as medical advice....otherwise they would be open to all sorts of penalties, from malpractice to criminal negligence.
- bjornski, on 12/21/2007, -2/+11Insurance companies all have "independent" doctors who are h ired to tell you that you don't need the treatment your doctor recommends.
- s0nicfreak, on 12/21/2007, -1/+8The doctors said she needed a new liver. They never said that getting a new liver would make her live.
- MWeather, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1That's not how it works. The OPTN decides who gets what organ. There is no waiting list for livers. For livers they use a grading system called Model of End-Stage Liver Disease, which gives priority to cancer patients. The next person on the list probably wasn't much better off than she was
- imants, on 12/21/2007, -12/+6The doctors who looked at her looked at her liver and said, essentially, "yep, she needs a new one." But that was looking just at the liver itself. Believe it or not, Cigna had many other independent doctors, some of the best in their field, look at the case and they ALL agreed that although a liver transplant was medically indicated, it was not appropriate given her other morbidities.
- cheeze_ballz, on 12/21/2007, -1/+9yeah, but why is it in the insurance company's fault to make that decision -- shouldn't that be the doctors? In my experience, the donor list usually goes on a basis of who needs it worst and who can use it best -- ie. if you're going to die anyways, you're probably not on the top of the list.
- belv, on 12/21/2007, -2/+4i pretty much agree with what you said. the girl already had leukemia, but realistically it was a dick move to reverse the decision on short notice.
- mrjit, on 12/21/2007, -8/+4We're all going to die in the end, should we just give up and shoot each other point blank with shotguns, or live as long as possible?
- bjornski, on 12/21/2007, -4/+5With the dog-eat-dog, "It's MINE! ***** you!" mentality that's so prevalent in this country right now, I predict the shotguns.
- robberry, on 12/21/2007, -0/+10This is incorrect, as I pointed out to Spuy767 above. Cigna is not in charge of allocating or distributing transplantable organs; that is the responsibility of the United Network for Organ Sharing. Cigna's responsiblity is to pay for life-saving medical treatment. They didn't do their job, and now a girl is dead.
- shark615, on 12/21/2007, -2/+2She probably would have been denied the liver anyway due to her state. The doctors said her liver was mangled the UNO didn't rule on anything
- robberry, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Again, that's not for Cigna to decide. Cigna's duty-- a duty they promised in writing to perform, and a duty for which they were well-paid-- is to pay for life-saving medical treatment, and they shirked this duty. At the very least, this is a breach of contract; at the most, it's manslaughter.
- shark615, on 12/21/2007, -2/+2She probably would have been denied the liver anyway due to her state. The doctors said her liver was mangled the UNO didn't rule on anything
- juve2004, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3you have to understand that this isnt a case of who is a better fit. a life is a life and if you have insurance then you should get the service you pay for. you think that they didn't pay for it because she wasn't a fit? Then that's crazy.. they looked at the bill. the amount of time she would have left and said hell no
- samssf, on 12/21/2007, -0/+5imants, you moron. It's not Cigna's choice which patient gets which liver. As robberry said, that's up to the UNOS.
- Speed, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3"She would have died from leukemia anyways"
If that was a 100% certain, the doctors would never have put her on the transplant list, and would never have asked for the transplant. Unless you have some inside information that I don't, I highly doubt the doctors are part of some conspiracy to waste valuable organs.- lacronicus, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1Actaully, thats exactly what they would do. They don't care whether she has a death warrant (ironically, they give transplants to people on death row, people *sentenced* to death, sometimes before people who are not) they will fight to keep her alive.
- Speed, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1True, but of she is going to die of "natural causes" even with the transplant, they won't bother.
- lacronicus, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1Actaully, thats exactly what they would do. They don't care whether she has a death warrant (ironically, they give transplants to people on death row, people *sentenced* to death, sometimes before people who are not) they will fight to keep her alive.
- groovepapa, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1all transplant hospitals (those registered with UNOS) have their own criteria for putting you on the organ transplant list. so there's a chance for failure.
insurance companies have their own criteria (expressed in the policy) for medical expenses they will cover. so there's a chance for failure.
the girl was in a coma, and had leukemia and complications from a previous marrow transplant already(?) ... so there's multiple chances for failure.
obviously it's a tragic story under tragic circumstances.
to go on from this deplorable anecdotal story to start making broad-sweeping policy suggestions (go 100% free-market, or go with a government healthcare system) is oversimplification. but, we *can* take this chance to review our own health insurance policies, or if we don't have any, look for some catastrophic-care-only policies or something, I dunno. (a commenter below noted this same insurance company covered $495k of his ICU healthcare costs at $5k cost to himself).
- 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."
- Narrator, on 12/21/2007, -14/+6So why didn't the hospital and doctors do it for free? Believe it or not, there's not an unlimited supply of qualified liver transplant surgeons that come raining out of the sky when money appears to pay for them. There are a limited supply of these doctors, facilities, technicians, etc. They are rationed by who can pay for it. In socialized medicine health care is rationed by waiting list for these doctors.
- bjornski, on 12/21/2007, -0/+9I'd rather take my chance waiting for my treatment, than knowing I'm ***** from the start because I didn't have enough green paper.
- MonarchWastxD, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3Also waiting lists have been downsized a lot recently; the NHS in the UK had a surplus of funds recently also.
- martalli, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1We have rationing int he US, too. The rationing goes something like this: If you have Medicaid or Medicare you get pretty much anything you need. If you are working for a big company, you probably have insurance and generally get what you need (except in unusual situations like this. The final group of people work for themselves or small companies and no insurance is available. Since anyone with almost any health probablem can't even buy insurance, that group of about 50 million people get no care. Not because they are lazy, but because they work (just not for the govt, GM, or Sara Lee). We ratiopn healthcare by denying healthcare to working people.
- jamesallen74, on 12/21/2007, -11/+22You know, it's the government's fault. if we voted Ron Paul into President, he would stop the government intervention and overbearing regulation, thus letting the Corporations be free, and thus they will have more time to care about people, right? oh wait...
/sarcasm
on a real note... this would not have happened in Canada or France or UK or Sweden or Denmark or.....- BobsYourUncle, on 12/21/2007, -9/+12Nope, here in Canada you'd just die on the waiting list. Our system is not without it's flaws. Maybe you just need to live here to know that.
- Sep11insidejob, on 12/21/2007, -1/+7There is no waiting time for critical surgeries.
- Sep11insidejob, on 12/21/2007, -1/+7There is no waiting time for critical surgeries.
- jamesallen74, on 12/21/2007, -6/+4Oh I know there is a list and not all get the donation, but at least no one gets TURNED DOWN for F**KING FINANCIAL REASONS!!!! Does THAT happen in Canada? Go eat some bacon.
- travbrack, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1ham
- martalli, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Wow, you are so wrong about that. People get turned down for financial reasons all the time. Medicine is a business in America. Only the ER cannot turn you away for financial reasons, but the hospital will chase you for the money you owe, and bankruptcy does not erase medical debts.
- jamesallen74, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Again, another brainless Digg user. I was referring to CANADA when I spoke of financial reasons. Good grieg, here on Digg, I have to S P E L L E V E R Y T H I N G O U T F O R P E O P L E
- Speed, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3Yes our system is flawed, but it is a lot better than the US system. At least in Canada, people get turned down because someone else is more likely to live, not because someone makes more money.
- KdogTN, on 12/22/2007, -1/+4The last thing you need is corporation's getting involved. That's the problem with the insurance companies. When you get a for profit mentality in a hospital you get the CEO wanting a bonus, the CFO wanting a bonus the Director of nursing wanting a bonus the department heads wanting a bonus and the nurses and staff getting piled upon to make those bonuses. For the sake of making an extra dollar, instead of your loved one being cared for under a 4 to 1 ratio it is 7 to 1. 7 patients to one nurse. By going corporate you are placing a dollar value on human life and you are look at not as a patient or a human, you are looked at with a profit margin in mind.
- scubasteve377, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3Why is it that whenever someone is trying to sell me socialism, they can never seem to go into detail about the economics of it? I never hear the words 'supply and demand' or 'incentive' or 'pricing structure' or anything, really, that would give me the impression that this person has even a high school level understanding of economics. Instead, all I hear is the same uninformed, emotion-over-logic arguments, like "People shouldn't be making profits when lives are on the line!" or "If you get rid of the regulations, corporations will be free to do whatever they want!"
Do any of you actually know how the free market works? (Hint: if you think the US economy is even close to a free market, then the answer is 'no') Can any of you explain the difference between capitalism and corporatism? Did you even know there was a difference? Have you ever researched who lobbies for the regulations that you are so enamored with? Or whom those regulations actually benefit? If you truly had a functional understanding of the free market, you would know that it empowers only consumers, and that government regulations empower only corporate interests or the government itself, not the people.
The failure in our health care system is because of mainly because of price inflation due to government funding and regulation, and the tax code. If you don't believe me, then explain the disparity between the prices of elective procedures, like cosmetic surgery and laser eye surgery, and similarly complicated and invasive procedures that are considered nonelective and are covered by managed care (an invention of the government, not the market, by the way) and government programs like Medicare and Medicaid. The prices for the former have steadily gone down, while prices for the latter (meaning the amount that is charged to taxpayers) sky rocket.
The only variable here, of any significance, is who is footing the bill. Individuals generally have limited resources, and since they are required to pay wholly out of their own pockets for elective procedures, prices have gone down to accommodate those financial limitations. The free market at work. The government, on the other hand, does not care how much money it spends (politicians happen to be very generous with other people's money, go figure), so hospitals and doctor's offices charge the maximum for everything, because they can, and they know the government will pay it.
In case you didn't get that, it fails because of too much government, not too little. If you disagree, I would absolutely love some education on why I am wrong (and save the emotional 'We are the World' ***** for your grandmother; I want to hear an argument based on sound economics, not dogmatic philosophy). But I predict none of you can give me a reasoned, logical, and informed response, so instead, I will just get dugg down for using too many big words.
Prove me wrong.- BlackBob, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1tldr
- scubasteve377, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2Thank you for proving my point.
- BlackBob, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Sorry, I couldn't resist.
- martalli, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2A free market requires that both parties have equal, or at least similar information. Medicine unfrtunately is a case when equal information does not exist. Our current "system" is not a free martket, because of tremendous amounts of regulation, and the large Medicare and Medicaid presence. Rates are essentially set by Medicare, with private insurance determining their payments based on the Medicare rates.
However, it is certainly not a fully socialized system, as about 1/6th of the population has no health insurance for the entire year.- scubasteve377, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2You are absolutely right, we have neither a free market system nor a socialist one. We have a corporatist system, meaning it is an unholy collusion of government and business interests. The fact is, any time the government gets involved prices will go up. You said yourself that Medicare essentially sets the rates. So if you get the government out, the market will work and prices will come down, making it much more affordable to buy health insurance and making the number of uninsured much smaller. In addition, non-catastrophic care (for things like physicals, colds, flus, broken bones, etc.) should be paid out of pocket directly providers, thereby negating the artificial price inflation that is caused by the overuse of insurance. The introduction of tax deductible medical savings accounts would also be a good idea. The result would be a health care system that is much more affordable, without sacrificing service, availability, and quality of care.
- BlackBob, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1tldr
- BobsYourUncle, on 12/21/2007, -9/+12Nope, here in Canada you'd just die on the waiting list. Our system is not without it's flaws. Maybe you just need to live here to know that.
- cbuddha42, on 12/21/2007, -13/+7Narrator's right, why blame the insurance company but not blame the hospital for not doing it pro bono?
Her insurance states that it will pay for x, y, and z in cases a, b, and c. If this procedure in this case was not covered by the insurance company, then why would they pay? Your health insurance coverage does not say they will pay any and all medical expenses regardless of circumstances or expenses.
If you don't want to be in this situation then either a) Pay for a higher end health plan with better coverage or b) save some money so you can pay for your own health care.
I really don't know where the idea that people are entitiled to health care came from. News flash: health care is NOT a right. The world does not automagically owe you an infinite amount of the best possible medical care simply because you were born. Notice that 200 years ago none of these procedures would have even been an option. Modern medicine requires both technology and medical professionals and both those developing the technology and providing care are doing so as a job and they deserve to be compensated. If you want their services, then pay them what they ask. If you want your insurance company to pay for it, then pay your insurance company enough per month that they will cover it.- LinusTheLim, on 12/21/2007, -1/+7It is empirically true that in the United States right now health care is not a right, but the wonderful thing about this country is that we can create new "rights" for the citizens. We can vote and have our elected representatives in the govermnent pass a law that makes it a right to have health care. 400 years ago in the Kingdom of England it was empirically true that there was no right to vote. Some people didn't like that, and when they moved they created a government and society where voting was a right. Replace "health care" everywhere in your argument with "right to vote", and you could be an apologist for the monarchy of pre-colonial England. It may sound nice to say that rights are "God given", but this is a meaningless phrase. The people have whatever rights they manage to keep the government from taking away and whatever rights they can manage to confer upon themselves as a benefit from living in a large, prosperous society.
- mikecc, on 12/21/2007, -0/+0\
- MonarchWastxD, on 12/21/2007, -2/+2IT'S IN THE GENEVA CONVENTION - THE RIGHT TO LIFE. Ass-moron.
- acidbass, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2your human card has been revoked.
Please return your tray table and seat to the upright position and leave immediately.
- LinusTheLim, on 12/21/2007, -1/+7It is empirically true that in the United States right now health care is not a right, but the wonderful thing about this country is that we can create new "rights" for the citizens. We can vote and have our elected representatives in the govermnent pass a law that makes it a right to have health care. 400 years ago in the Kingdom of England it was empirically true that there was no right to vote. Some people didn't like that, and when they moved they created a government and society where voting was a right. Replace "health care" everywhere in your argument with "right to vote", and you could be an apologist for the monarchy of pre-colonial England. It may sound nice to say that rights are "God given", but this is a meaningless phrase. The people have whatever rights they manage to keep the government from taking away and whatever rights they can manage to confer upon themselves as a benefit from living in a large, prosperous society.
- florin, on 12/21/2007, -6/+12I'm somewhat of a "fiscally conservative" type, to some degree (I read Greenspan's book and I liked it and I agreed with many of the things he says) but privatizing health insurance is a f***ing huge mistake. I mean - those companies make money off of people's illnesses and suffering? How screwed up is that?
Open anything you want to the free market and private sector, but not health insurance and stuff like that. That's just stupid.- mooseontheloose, on 12/21/2007, -7/+8"stuff like that"
Does car insurance count? Life insurance (OMG SENSATIONALIST STATEMENT THEY PROFIT OFF PEOPLES DEATH)? Should those be public too?
By the way, the health insurance company doesn't profit if you're ill. It's in their best interests to make sure you're NEVER sick.- slicerace, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3Why is this guy getting dugg down? The whole point of insurance companies is to manage risk -- people have procedures approved that save their lives that would BANKRUPT their family. I had a friend who was run over by a car. Collapsed lung, cracked ribs, other stuff -- amazing she lived -- but the insurance company paid over a hundred thousand dollars for the support she received. Out of pocket, the cost of the care would have been astronomical, but the insurance company's whole deal is to manage risk -- the risk that someone could get seriously injured. I really don't think insurance companies are so bad in general. Of course I do think the case described in the article is an outrage and just sad for everyone involved.
- gustasonfrever, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1Your hopeless. ***** your little mind "florin" your no fiscal conservative
- lacronicus, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3NO U
Actually, that's about what I'd want to say. There are simply some things that should be controlled by the government instead of the free market, citizens health being one of them. Money or no, everyone should have decent healthcare. We live in one of the most prosperous nations in the world, yet we have people dying because they can't afford to pay the doctor. You really think that people who can't afford it should simply be left for dead? "Well, if they're going to die, they'd better do it, and decrease the surplus population"
- lacronicus, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3NO U
- mooseontheloose, on 12/21/2007, -7/+8"stuff like that"
- mooseontheloose, on 12/21/2007, -9/+16You people are absolutely nuts if you think any government insurance would green light every possible operation or treatment. Stuff like this will happen in ANY kind of system you can conceive of, because there comes a point where it's statistically just unfeasible, unprofitable, and harmful to OTHERS to continue giving care to a patient.
Bury me, whatever. It's just a fact. There are limited supplies of organs, doctors, and machines. Sometimes, people will suffer because of it. Picking one emotionally charged story and making stupid statements about the "evilness" of private health care changes nothing.- MrTulip, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2(in reply to your comment above (***** comment system bugs))
"Why should I have to pay for public if I want private?"
you don't have to. at least here in germany, if you choose a private health insurance you don't have to pay anything for the socialized healthcare system. - pintomp3, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3"You people are absolutely nuts if you think any government insurance"
most people aren't looking for government insurance, they are looking for government health care. and in such a system, it is the doctor who makes the decision, as it should be.
- MrTulip, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2(in reply to your comment above (***** comment system bugs))
- expatcatalyst, on 12/21/2007, -9/+3The problem with "the system" is the providers. How many do you see driving around in normal cars like you and me? Go to the parking lot of a hospital and look at the Dr only parking. Look up a few of the Dr's real addresses and see what kind of mansion they live in. This "system" of us normal people paving their driveways with gold has got to stop. A good way to do that is to get into natural cures as much as possible. All the information is out there, you just have to look. Besides, these same golden Dr's and their health care organizations are so far in bed with Big Pharma and the FDA it's pathetic. Remember when, or if not ask someone over 40, the doctor actually cared about figuring out a cure instead of pointing you toward some drug that will in the end make you sicker. And their treatment didn't cost an arm and a leg.....?
- trickyt, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3You're not coming right out and saying that you fear the profiting health care industry, you're just giving highly inaccurate silly examples without just saying flat out you're paranoid. The tin in your foil hat must be a bit rusty.
- Waterrat, on 12/22/2007, -0/+5 And "natural" cures don't
cure diddly squat.. - expatcatalyst, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1Good little sheep...you will really fix the problem by believing them.....good for you!
- Waterrat, on 12/22/2007, -0/+5 And "natural" cures don't
- trickyt, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3You're not coming right out and saying that you fear the profiting health care industry, you're just giving highly inaccurate silly examples without just saying flat out you're paranoid. The tin in your foil hat must be a bit rusty.
- Aeric, on 12/21/2007, -2/+13If it was up to Hillary Clinton, we would all have this ***** health insurance.
- Waterrat, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3 And that's why I won't vote for her...She has been bought and paid for by the health "care" industry.
- Waterrat, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3 And that's why I won't vote for her...She has been bought and paid for by the health "care" industry.
- alexgg, on 12/21/2007, -3/+6Ok, now. Read before burying. Has anybody actually read the contract? Did the Insurance company was to pay for the transplant? Were they entitled to it? Had the necessary time passed for a liver transplant to be covered? As someone who has read a lot of insurance policies, I know there are surgeries and procedures that are simply not covered. Can anyone shed some light on this before making emotional statements?
If you don't like the contract, don't buy. I know there needs to be a better health care system, but it is not the insurance company's fault, it is the government's.- BlackBob, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1tldr
- HeroreV, on 12/21/2007, -2/+10CIGNA 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.
Why should they be expected to throw away money for something that will do no good? That just means higher costs for everybody else and a wasted liver that could have been put to good use. If the procedure actually had any chance of success, it'd be a different story, but I don't see anyone claiming that.- Speed, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3I trust her doctors more than the insurance company. The doctors know there is a shortage of organs, and they don't try to waste them. Obviously the doctors felt she had a decent chance of surviving or they would not have recommended the procedure.
- tycity, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3Why? Because it MAY have saved her life. She HAD insurance and they SHOULD have paid for it. If you needed a new heart, wouldn't you expect, or the very least, hope, your insurance would pay for it? Or would you be looking for fine print and basically waste precious hours combing through mumbo jumbo specifically written to be confusing and waste even more precious hours trying to get through the red tape of getting a heart in the first place? I have a feeling you'd be fighting to get that effin' heart that every human being deserves if they need one. With trilliions wasted on ***** wars, everyone with a donor request could have one if it were allocated to the American health cause than helping Bush get more money for his lawless buddies.
- mitrovarr, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3The fact that the transplant surgery was supported by her doctors and presumably made it past the transplant board suggests that CIGNA was lying through their teeth. Transplant committees aren't typically known for their willingness to throw organs away on hopeless cases, and if it hadn't already made it past them it would have had to before CIGNA paid anything.
- LeeTXJD, on 12/21/2007, -3/+7CIGNA is NOT a "healthcare provider" it is an insurer.
Insurers don't make money by PAYING claims.
PS - the Government would not have paid for this either.- pintomp3, on 12/22/2007, -2/+3in a government run health care system, they wouldn't be the ones deciding, the doctor would.
- ChileanGoD, on 12/21/2007, -6/+4SICKO
- gustasonfrever, on 12/22/2007, -1/+4Over 50% of the money spent in health care today is by the government and our health care sucks. Lets get the government out of our health! We don't need some stupid inept government bureaucracy running health care, let the free market work.
- crazydiode, on 12/21/2007, -15/+38who the ***** are they to decide what kind of treatment we should go to? fukcing leechy bastards...
- Itazura, on 12/21/2007, -39/+475Good thing we have better health insurance than all those universal healthcare countries....oh wait...
- ghostfish, on 12/21/2007, -66/+13Actually we do, in those universal health insurance countries she wouldn't have even had a shot at a transplant for another few months.
- chicofaraby, on 12/21/2007, -8/+47So do you know that for a fact or are you simply talking out of your ass?
- MrWhite7, on 12/21/2007, -17/+16He's talking out of his ass as much as the original poster he responded to.
- martalli, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Actually, our healthcare system does rate lower than "universal healthcare countries". For example, Britain spends less than half of what we spend (by percent GDP), but yet they do better on all the basic demographics: longer lifespans, less infant mortality, and so on.
- 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.
- Spuy767, on 12/21/2007, -16/+3Not too long is an incredibly subective thing, in case you haven't noticed, we can't live very long without something as important as a liver. A few days or weeks can mean death if a person is in need of an organ transplant.
- MWeather, on 12/21/2007, -2/+10Wait times for emergency procedures are better than in the US, because they don't have non-emergency patients who can't afford health care taking time and resources away from the hospital. They can just go to a normal doctor, leaving the emergency room for emergencies.
- Double0Doug, on 12/21/2007, -4/+2Are they going to give you that liver if it is pretty clear you are going to die of cancer anyway?
Regardless of how bad she needed the liver, socialized medicine would have put her behind anyone else who had a higher chance of survival and a similar need. - technoredneck, on 12/21/2007, -1/+6@ Double0Doug: How is that not fair? It makes perfect sense to me. Besides, you can still get private health insurance to pay if it's needed, but as shown by this article, you can't always count on that to bail you out, either.
Also: quick, dude, tell me the difference between socialized medicine and universal healthcare without using Google. Also, I'd like for you to tell me the difference between single- and multi-payer universal healthcare. If you can't do those two things, please refrain from debating the issue until you have a firm grasp of its basic concepts. - thebellmaster1x, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2@MWeather
Actually, being an ER intern, I can tell you that that's actually incorrect. According to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), doctors are not allowed to turn people away from the emergency department. Drug-seekers and "Oh, no, I got the sniffles, help me" people come in ALL the time. Frequently, they'll make up the majority of the patients for the day.
In all fairness, though, that's really the fault of our uneducated population. They have no idea that if their back hurts a little, it's not even close to an emergency. They just don't understand; all they want is quick care. Like the 1 to 10 pain scale. A 10 is supposed to be for something like a cerebral aneurysm--something that ***** HURTS. I've seen people say "10" and just sit there like it's nothing.
This country needs to at least start to understand how healthcare works.
- MrWhite7, on 12/21/2007, -17/+16He's talking out of his ass as much as the original poster he responded to.
- 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.
- technoredneck, on 12/21/2007, -1/+11I'd like for you to back up your claim. Or are you pulling it out of your ass? Either way, a slim chance is better than no chance.
I don't understand why we're so anti-universal-healthcare here. (Well, I reckon I do, considering 'Big Pharma' spoon-feeds self-serving propaganda to anyone half-willing to not think for himself.) When I was in the UK, I only had positive experiences with the British NHS, their (nearly) free healthcare system. Furthermore, I've only had positive experiences with TRICARE, the United States' own socialized medicine program for military beneficiaries.
Universal healthcare and socialized medicine are not the nightmares they're made out to be here. They aren't perfect, sure, but they're certainly no worse than the health insurance the majority of Americans have now, and if the waiting lists are longer, they are not obscenely so. When you hear things about people having to wait ten or eleven years for procedures, those are fringe cases that don't happen very often. Similar things happen in our own mostly privatized healthcare system just as much.
And, judging by my own experience and that of others', everything I've said is not something I am pulling out of my ass. - playmusic, on 12/21/2007, -3/+7Stop being a damn sheep for the health insurance companies.
- gernblansted, on 12/21/2007, -4/+8Lie. Lie. and Total Lie.
This is standard issue ***** from the multi-billion dollar insurance lobby, and dimwitted people walk around parroting what they hear like they know better, but they are just victims of misinformation campaigns. Universal health care has it's problems, but people dying for greed is not generally one of them. For countries like Canada and England, you get what you need. And if you don't, it's an exception and not a rule like it is in the United States. The US health care system is a national disgrace (even if a large corporation or powerful political machine convinced you otherwise, it's an embarrassment that only a few Americans can't see), and I don't want to hear how ghostfish got in right away for his gout because for every story like his there are countless stories of people suffering and dying so the CEO of a corporation can walk away with a half billion dollar golden parachute. Why is it that a corporation, whose job it is BY LAW to maximize profits by any legal means possible, is charged with determining who lives and who dies or who's family gets dumped from the roll of the insured because of a pre-existing condition? - RacistsForRP, on 12/21/2007, -3/+0Rudy Giuliani I thought you were busy campaging?
- longcat99, on 12/22/2007, -2/+5the waiting times aren't even the point here. in countries with universal healthcare like canada, no one would ever be turned down for a liver transplant (except in special, extremely rare circumstances). and no one would die because they couldn't afford to pay it themselves.
what people don't realize is that the reason wait times are so high is because 1) those who need it the most go first (so really she would have gotten the transplant in the same amount of time) and 2) EVERYONE gets treated. when doctors are giving a whole entire country healthcare, as opposed to the select few who have good insurance or lots of money like in the states, of course the wait times will be longer? its common sense! - spikes, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3Canada - Waiting time to have my gall bladder removed because it was necessary: 2 days.
- Bananas21ca, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Obviously you weren't dieing!
Don't be such a puss!
- Bananas21ca, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Obviously you weren't dieing!
- Instaa, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1How does the system have anything to do with how many organs there are around to transplant? If there was a liver to give in any country, the surgery would be done immediately.
- chicofaraby, on 12/21/2007, -8/+47So do you know that for a fact or are you simply talking out of your ass?
- cespee, on 12/21/2007, -39/+14People who died in 2006 while on the Canadian transplant waiting list: 243 (5 people per week)
From http://www.organdonations.ca/
(The Organ Donations and Transplant Association of Canada website)- 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?- cespee, on 12/21/2007, -21/+4My point is to look at the facts. As stated above, there's more than 9,000 people in the UK need an organ transplant that could save or dramatically improve their life. There's a lot less people in the UK than in the US. I don't know what the answer is, but no one can say that one country's way of doing things is better before looking at some numbers unless they're talking about philosophy. If your philosophy is to have the government take your money by force to pay for a "need", there will be rationing. If you pay for it yourself, you'll do self rationing.
- Myonosken, on 12/21/2007, -0/+17@cespee: You said Canada...Nothing to do with the UK.
- ShinRaTDR, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3"My point is to look at the facts"
Or to mine useless and irrelevant facts in order to make your position seem rational. And Canada & the UK are not the same country.
- 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.
- MerryMortician, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4...wait a min.. THATS A GREAT IDEA!!!! we can harvest organs!
- bjornski, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Why not? We use prison labor now, something use used to condemn.
Maybe we should follow Chinas lead and use death row inmates as organ farms.
/sarc, for those that need it.
- bjornski, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Why not? We use prison labor now, something use used to condemn.
- MerryMortician, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4...wait a min.. THATS A GREAT IDEA!!!! we can harvest organs!
- 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.- unpolloloco, on 12/21/2007, -13/+1so......the fact that canada has the same cancer death rate despite having a 50% lower incidence rate has nothing to do with their healthcare system. No one had died due to it.......
- neoform, on 12/21/2007, -1/+4So you basically pulled those number straight out of your ass, right?
- dolomite24, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1...what numbers?
- digggggggggg, on 12/21/2007, -0/+13Right, because our healthcare system is so damn perfect as is.
I pay $500 a semester to buy insurance from my college. They denied a claim for an operation on a fractured radius because I hadn't called it in 24 hours beforehand, so it wasn't 'pre-approved'. I ended up having to pay $3k out of pocket. What kind of ***** do you call that?- subliminalurge, on 12/21/2007, -17/+1I would call that kind of ***** "somebody didn't read the terms of their insurance policy".
- unpolloloco, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1and that someone doesnt have the audacity to sue the insurance company
- bjornski, on 12/21/2007, -0/+5You can only get your emergency procedure taken care of if you plan it well in advance.
- YojimboJango, on 12/21/2007, -0/+5I had the same thing happen when I broke my hand. The doctors put a brace on it and told me that they would let my hand heal incorrectly for 10 days then go back in and re-break it so they could set it right. All so that the insurance could avoid paying for 'emergency' care.
Unfortunately for them they had created a monster. I couldn't work so I had all day to sit around in pain. Just me, my unlimited calling, and a raging hate for the insurance company.
The trick is to never sit on hold for more than 2 minutes. Just hang up and call back. After 7 hours of guessing extensions and yelling at everyone that would pick up their phone I got my hand set and in a cast the next morning.
After everything was said and done I think yelling at random people about how bad it hurt gave me more relief than the vicodin that they gave me to hold me over for the 10 days. I walked away feeling good about myself. After all, I had proved that it would be a financially bad idea to make someone wait 10 days to get something set, because I was willing to spend 8 hours a day for all 10 days yelling at the poor saps from accounting about how bad my hand hurts and how I don't want them to re-break it. All the lost productivity probably would've added up eventually.
- cespee, on 12/21/2007, -9/+1If you were unbiased and honestly didn't have an opinion, which facts would you look at then??
Maybe the more accurate thing to do then is to compare waiting list times.
UK: Adults wait an average of 103 days for a heart and 406 for a lung. Children wait an average of 143 days for a heart.; Adults wait an average of 95 days for a liver transplant, while children wait an average of 76 days.
US: What is the average amount of time that patients wait for a donated liver?
The time that people spend waiting for a liver transplant varies widely. Blood type, body size, severity of illness and availability of donor organs all affect waiting time. Some people who develop sudden and complete liver failure from an acute illness may only have to wait a few days for a transplant. Other people, whose condition is less severe, may stay on the waiting list for many months.- cespee, on 12/21/2007, -4/+1Note that you have to wait to get on the waiting list in the UK. So, of course, fact comparisons can't be completely perfect, but comparisons should be attempted.
- bjornski, on 12/21/2007, -1/+5The wait time in the UK varies widely on those factors also.
How about a rundown on the AVERAGE wait times in the US, like you gave us for the UK?
Oh yeah, your argument would have fallen through the floor.- cespee, on 12/21/2007, -6/+1Well, research it! Tell me what it is! Oh yeah, you don't care because you already know all the answers.
- ShinRaTDR, on 12/21/2007, -0/+5"Maybe the more accurate thing to do then is to compare waiting list times."
We'll thats great, you proved the main downside to universal healthcare that everyone attacks time and time again. Mainly because its true, and taken out of context looks really bad, but the people who wait 103 days for a heart of 406 for a lung wait that long because they can. The people that will die right away are pushed through the system faster. All you've proved here is that like all other countries, the UK has a shortage of donors.
- ethamajin, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1All I know is that if they ever take away healthcare in Canada, I'm moving to Europe.
- 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."
- captainchris, on 12/21/2007, -2/+18Did those people die because there were no organs available or were they promised one and then they turned around and said... no?
- cespee, on 12/21/2007, -15/+3"Today more than 9,000 people in the UK need an organ transplant that could save or dramatically improve their life. Most are waiting for a kidney, others for a heart, lung or liver transplant. But less than 3,000 transplants are carried out each year."
"Last year more than 400 people died while waiting for a transplant. One in ten people waiting for a heart transplant will die and many others will lose their lives before they even get on to the waiting list."
From http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a ...- Instaa, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4They died from lack of organs not because people won't do the surgery. You are an idiot if you think they have organs going to waste because they don't have an opening to get a transplant in.
- ShinRaTDR, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1"But less than 3,000 transplants are carried out each year."
You think it might be because like all other countries in the world, the UK has a shortage of donors for these organs? And where are the American numbers? and the comparison of how many people died because they were turned away or stuck on a list vs how many died due to lack of available organs? Oh right then your stupid argument would fall apart right when it hits the eyes instead of a couple seconds later.
- mufasa, on 12/21/2007, -7/+40Universal / Free healthcare > going to war every third year.
- tattertech, on 12/21/2007, -20/+1I'd prefer neither (because there's no such thing as free healthcare).
- cozb, on 12/21/2007, -1/+17right, that's what taxes are for. Where would you rather have your tax go to, a war chest or a health car system?
- tattertech, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1The neither was real difficult to understand wasn't it? (Actually apparently it was for how much I was dugg down).
I'd rather not spend money on a bloated and inefficient health insurance system, and I'd also rather not spend money on a bloated and inefficient war.
I guess that's a little tough to understand though...
- tattertech, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1The neither was real difficult to understand wasn't it? (Actually apparently it was for how much I was dugg down).
- unpolloloco, on 12/21/2007, -9/+1neither - into the health insurance of the people that can't afford it (aka the children's heal insurance bill), not into a universalized health care system where the quality of care suffers and medical innovation grinds to a halt
- Sketchcast, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4How does medical innovation grind to a halt? When you pay your insurance company, how much of that money goes into med school R&D departments? How much of that goes into pharma R&D? The answer; none of it.
Privatized health insurance does not supr innovation at all. Retard.
- Sketchcast, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4How does medical innovation grind to a halt? When you pay your insurance company, how much of that money goes into med school R&D departments? How much of that goes into pharma R&D? The answer; none of it.
- cozb, on 12/21/2007, -1/+17right, that's what taxes are for. Where would you rather have your tax go to, a war chest or a health car system?
- 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.
- unpolloloco, on 12/21/2007, -8/+5and how much fatter are americans than europeans?
- technoredneck, on 12/21/2007, -0/+7About the same, at least in the UK.
- iOsiris, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2yeah but if you compare the per capita spent between several countries like Canada / Sweden and the US. The countries with universal health care systems covers way more patients for the amount of capital spent.
- YojimboJango, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3The US also has the most advanced health care in the world. No other country in the world has come up with more widely used research than the US. Simply put, if a person gets sick and no one else can fix it, they get sent to the states.
Sure we aren't the tech leaders anymore and manufacturing has all been outsourced, but no one in the world can touch our medical education programs for cranking out the best and the brightest the world has to offer.- Sketchcast, on 12/21/2007, -1/+4The thing is, the money that goes into your privatized insurance has nothing to do with medical education, drug R&D, or medical technology R&D.
- epmc, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3Universal health care and medical research don't have to be antagonistic.
- unpolloloco, on 12/21/2007, -8/+5and how much fatter are americans than europeans?
- cespee, on 12/21/2007, -9/+4I agree with you that we have an evil government because we're involved in stupid wars. But why would you want this government to take charge of your healthcare? Do you think it's suddenly going to turn "good" and really care about you when it hands out government cheese instead of government guns? Why are you calling it free healthcare? Is the healthcare going to be as free as this war? No, your children are going to pay for your healthcare along with 9% bank interest forever and ever. Do you honestly think this girl would have received a liver under a universal healthcare plan? She may have been lucky to be on a "waiting list". She would have been lucky to have been diagnosed or even treated for the leukemia in the first place. Why didn't her parents pay for the transplant? Because they didn't have the money? Why did insurance deny it? Because of money? Then why would this bankrupt government had anymore money?
- gernblansted, on 12/21/2007, -2/+12"But why would you want this government to take charge of your healthcare?"
Right - let's keep wealthy corporations in charge of your health care. My wife used to work for one of those companies. Her job was to call people and tell them timmy was going to die because even though an effective treatment existed, the company determined timmy wasn't going to pay out for reason 'x' where 'x' is whatever the company could come up with. She told hundreds of people they were going to die even though they didn't have to. No, she didn't use those words, but when the phone goes 'click' and you're going to die, well, that speaks for itself.
How about doctors being in charge like they are in Canada, England and France?
Would you like to talk money? About $2000 is added to the tag of every American car sold to fund workers health care. We can't compete with countries that have universal health care. That's a fact. And we still die for no reason. - KraftDinner101, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2So you would rather not pay a little bit more per year than be GUARANTEED to be covered when you go to the hospital? Seriously, it's idiotic to think "Hey, I can maybe not eat out so often or maybe sacrifice a little bit each year so that I can live longer, but that's too cumbersome to me. I'll enjoy all those extra delicious steaks so much more." I can't believe there's actually still people like you left in America! No wonder nothing ever gets done there.
- gernblansted, on 12/21/2007, -2/+12"But why would you want this government to take charge of your healthcare?"
- tattertech, on 12/21/2007, -20/+1I'd prefer neither (because there's no such thing as free healthcare).
- 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.
- SomaSynth, on 12/21/2007, -5/+1You're right. Speaking as a Canadian, in Canada she would have received the liver. On the other hand, some other kid that had a reasonable chance at surviving after the the transplant would not. You wouldn't be complaining in the latter case however because some kid dying from no available liver is not as dramatic and you would have never heard of it.
- HerrEisenheim, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4We do—if you can afford it.
- Iamyourowner, on 12/21/2007, -16/+0We do have a better healthcare system then the ones who do the "universal" healthcare *****.
- technoredneck, on 12/21/2007, -0/+9Explain how. Refute your claim with sources.
- MarrowMan, on 12/21/2007, -1/+8LOL you're mentally retarded if you think that, BIG TIME
- adeptusliberus, on 12/21/2007, -1/+8You'll be saying this until YOU get sick.
- gernblansted, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4Hey, HerrEisenheim, your life saving procedure has been denied. You were just killed by the 'best' health care system. Sucks to be you, especially since the homeless guy across the border got your procedure without a problem.
Saying the U.S. has the "Best Health Care System" is like saying we have the best CEO compensation packages in the world. Like health care, the statement is kind of true, but where do you come in? Don't think for a second your health insurance will help you when your liver fails. - Iamyourowner, on 12/21/2007, -3/+0The wait times. However, i'm all for universal healthcare if they find a way to make it work better then Candada.
- Phormium, on 12/21/2007, -10/+2Why not have universal food, or universal housing provided by the government then? Moving towards more government control of the economy is not the answer to our problems. Actually, government control of the healthcare industry is what caused our system to be so ***** up in the first place. The government regulation and protection of the big health care corporations caused the prices to inflate exponentially, and corruption to ensue. Having the government provide everything sounds nice in theory, but does not work well in reality.
- roadracersweet, on 12/21/2007, -0/+5Straw man. Canada spends less per capita on all of its health care than the USA does. And that is only what the governments spend, that is not including what you personally pay. There is a big difference between arguing with a private insurer over the value of your totalled car, its another to try and argue over what care you are entitled to medically. Why is it always an all or nothing concept with you people? Gov't runs everything or nothing. "Why don't they feed me too and wipe my ass??" *****, what are you, 10 years old? If the US put in some serious regulations as to how these insurance companies operate, there might be hope for an all private system. Just wait until the US hits the coming recession or depression, then even the moderately wealthy might feel the pain of their wonderful health care system. You don't want what happened to your wonderfully regulated mortgage industry to be repeated in your health system.
- Phormium, on 12/21/2007, -5/+1How is that a straw man? The constitution explicitly states the role of the federal government, and nowhere in it does it describe providing everyone with free healthcare, food, or other socialistic tendencies. I agree the healthcare system in America is ***** up, but we have to pick a direction: should we continue moving in the direction of bigger federal government, or of a limited federal government? Should we continue building upon this 9 trillion dollar debt, and add national health care to the list of unsustainable programs, just like social security, Medicare, and homeland security, or should we move back towards what America was originally intended to be - a free market, equal rights based society? If anything, a depression in the US will be caused from our excessive federal gov't expenditures, debt and inflation - not from the lack of regulation.
- technoredneck, on 12/22/2007, -0/+4In a completely free market, the only ones that wind up free are the wealthy. When middle-class living conditions and workers rights go back to the same condition they were in pre-Depression-era, you'll regret taking away all of those regulations and social programs. They were put there for a reason, i.e. without the government looking out for and helping the little guy, he will get trampled over and enslaved by the big guy. A side-order of socialism along with capitalism is necessary to keep living conditions decent and prevent an egregiously skewed distribution of wealth.
If you want to talk equal rights, why should only the wealthy be able to purchase healthcare? In a free market, healthcare businesses don't care about the little guy if they can make more money only serving wealthier clientele. The free market is cold and heartless by nature, and putting healthcare in it makes it based on wallet size rather than equal rights.
Also, if you'll pick up a history book and read it, you'll see The Great Depression was caused by a free market without sufficient regulation to keep it from collapsing in it on itself in the event that something went wrong. (The post-war period and the incompetence of the federal reserve also added to things, but that's beside the point.)
- technoredneck, on 12/22/2007, -0/+4In a completely free market, the only ones that wind up free are the wealthy. When middle-class living conditions and workers rights go back to the same condition they were in pre-Depression-era, you'll regret taking away all of those regulations and social programs. They were put there for a reason, i.e. without the government looking out for and helping the little guy, he will get trampled over and enslaved by the big guy. A side-order of socialism along with capitalism is necessary to keep living conditions decent and prevent an egregiously skewed distribution of wealth.
- epmc, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Well actually implementing a publicly funded universal health care system would help reduce national debt. A privately funded health care system costs the government much more to maintain and operate because of the bloated private sector bureaucracy (kind of ironic, huh?). Creating social programs is not unconstitutional. It does not defy the constitution. The constitution sets specific limitations on the federal government such as separate branches of government; it does not, however, limit the federal government from creating social programs such as universal health care. That is why a legislature was created. To give the people discretion about how the government should act and what programs and laws it should support.
- Phormium, on 12/21/2007, -5/+1How is that a straw man? The constitution explicitly states the role of the federal government, and nowhere in it does it describe providing everyone with free healthcare, food, or other socialistic tendencies. I agree the healthcare system in America is ***** up, but we have to pick a direction: should we continue moving in the direction of bigger federal government, or of a limited federal government? Should we continue building upon this 9 trillion dollar debt, and add national health care to the list of unsustainable programs, just like social security, Medicare, and homeland security, or should we move back towards what America was originally intended to be - a free market, equal rights based society? If anything, a depression in the US will be caused from our excessive federal gov't expenditures, debt and inflation - not from the lack of regulation.
- roadracersweet, on 12/21/2007, -0/+5Straw man. Canada spends less per capita on all of its health care than the USA does. And that is only what the governments spend, that is not including what you personally pay. There is a big difference between arguing with a private insurer over the value of your totalled car, its another to try and argue over what care you are entitled to medically. Why is it always an all or nothing concept with you people? Gov't runs everything or nothing. "Why don't they feed me too and wipe my ass??" *****, what are you, 10 years old? If the US put in some serious regulations as to how these insurance companies operate, there might be hope for an all private system. Just wait until the US hits the coming recession or depression, then even the moderately wealthy might feel the pain of their wonderful health care system. You don't want what happened to your wonderfully regulated mortgage industry to be repeated in your health system.
- pandorazboxx, on 12/21/2007, -2/+5But George Bush just said we have the number 1 Health care system in the world....
- bolognium, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2I don't know enough to say which is better - but I do wonder whether a government bureaucracy would consider treatments "too experimental" just as this corporation did. I mean, would we allow people to try ANY medical experiment they wanted, on the peoples tab? who would decide what's legit or not?
I tend to lean the other way - free up the system of corporate influence; get rid of the HMO mandate.. ultimately open up the market so costs will go down. The middle-man is the problem - he's too greedy to hand out much treatment. A government middle-man wouldn't have this problem but might get overwhelmed - reducing quality.. unless the free-market alternative is allowed along side social medicine. dunno if that's feasible though. - wilf_brim, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1No, in this case, in almost all single payer systems, the patient would not have received the transplant. Her main problem, leukemia, was still ongoing. Her chances of survival were slim. The transplant and resources would have gone to somebody with a better chance of living.
- roadracersweet, on 12/22/2007, -0/+0The commenter's on this thread should be commended. All too often, comments on Digg exhibit a painful mix of poor intellectual thought and exceptionally bad grammar. Those in this thread have renewed my hope that Digg can be a valuable forum of thought.
- ghostfish, on 12/21/2007, -66/+13Actually we do, in those universal health insurance countries she wouldn't have even had a shot at a transplant for another few months.
- nblsavage, on 12/21/2007, -23/+263***** scumbags. Yeah, good idea to leave health care up to big business.
- minoss, on 12/21/2007, -40/+17Yes, much better to leave it up to government. They always get everything right and aren't corrupt or wasteful in the least.
- reed311, on 12/21/2007, -2/+34Government merely foots the bill. It has nothing to do with them denying transplants, etc.
- Double0Doug, on 12/21/2007, -3/+3 Cigna didn't deny them a transplant; they merely said they wouldn’t foot the bill. You’d be a fool to think that a governmentally funded system wouldn’t have oversight on what is or is not covered. They do it today with Medicaid and Medicare.
- nicktx, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1Oversight, sure. But watching your bottom line and profiting at the expense of the live of a human being, a person who has paid you your premiums when they didn't need you and whom you kicked to the curb when she needed you most is disgusting, despicable, and sadly perfectly legal. We need that to change!
- thomasX, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1Tax payer foots the bill. It has nothing to do with them denying transplants, etc.
Fixed.
- Double0Doug, on 12/21/2007, -3/+3 Cigna didn't deny them a transplant; they merely said they wouldn’t foot the bill. You’d be a fool to think that a governmentally funded system wouldn’t have oversight on what is or is not covered. They do it today with Medicaid and Medicare.
- Sublime059, on 12/21/2007, -3/+25Better them than big business homes. It's just a fact.
- nicktx, on 12/21/2007, -0/+10If you're talking about the CURRENT government, I would agree with you. Coincidentally, the same is owned by big business and your point is moot. I can also point to many other countries that do have competent governments.
- bolognium, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1those aren't the only two options - the free-market could handle health.. take out the corporate middleman and costs would be reduced.
- reed311, on 12/21/2007, -2/+34Government merely foots the bill. It has nothing to do with them denying transplants, etc.
- takamalak, on 12/21/2007, -2/+46At least the stockholders are happy.
- tgc1, on 12/21/2007, -0/+6I hope they choke on the champagne and caviar. The bastards.
- mikedoth, on 12/21/2007, -1/+4Until they get sick... hehe
- unabsolute, on 12/21/2007, -5/+7Soon enough the people will revolt. Its only a matter of time and the tyrants will be held responsible for their actions.
- crazydiode, on 12/21/2007, -0/+5wanna bet?
- mooseontheloose, on 12/21/2007, -4/+0The tyrants that made you sign up for their voluntary health care plan?
- MrWhite7, on 12/21/2007, -3/+30There's a difference between health CARE and health INSURANCE.
- ahoy, on 12/21/2007, -13/+23Ron Paul would.
- maelstromwar, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Exactly why I donated only once.
He's good, but far from perfect.
- maelstromwar, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Exactly why I donated only once.
- diggingaround, on 12/21/2007, -1/+7Just leave the health care business to private corporations ... you know.. survival of the fittest.. that's the name of the game. Who cares about Norway and their health care system...
(* maybe a sarcastic comment, than maybe not *) - FadieZ, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2***** *****. They even had the balls to pretend like they cared.
- Phormium, on 12/21/2007, -5/+3Why should we trust bureaucrats over big businesses to handle our health care? Dramatically increasing government expenditures when we already have a 9 trillion dollar national debt is only going to make problems worse. The role of the federal government is not to provide everyone with health care, just like it is not required to provide everyone with food or housing.
- ClaroAtaxia, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1Amen! People who want free health care via their government are nothing but leeches.
- sanotaan, on 12/21/2007, -4/+4your beautiful bumper-sticker logic on the flip side sounds like this:
let's leave healthcare to the people responsible for the iraq war and thousands of civilian casualties instead
see how dopey that sounds? see how dopey you sound?- notthemama, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3Unfortunately, people have the weird idea that our government can do a better job somehow. Considering how deeply involved the government has been involved health care and insurance for the last 40 years, I can't imagine why they believe it.
I guess some people just want to think making laws and involving feds more will fix things.- ClaroAtaxia, on 12/22/2007, -0/+0And if history is any sort of judge, and it is, they will be sadly mistaken. Government has never fixed anything before, so why are we so quick to ask them to do this? THINK people!
- notthemama, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3Unfortunately, people have the weird idea that our government can do a better job somehow. Considering how deeply involved the government has been involved health care and insurance for the last 40 years, I can't imagine why they believe it.
- alexgg, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3Ok, now. Read before burying. Has anybody actually read the contract? Did the Insurance company was to pay for the transplant? Were they entitled to it? Had the necessary time passed for a liver transplant to be covered? As someone who has read a lot of insurance policies, I know there are surgeries and procedures that are simply not covered. Can anyone shed some light on this before making emotional statements?
If you don't like the contract, don't buy. I know there needs to be a better health care system, but it is not the insurance company's fault, it is the government's. - demonbaby, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4Why are the arguments on this issue always so black and white? "Socialized medicine is the devil!" "The corporations are letting people die!" Why can't we have private healthcare AND reliable federal healthcare? Just like right now, I can wait in line at the post office and pay a reasonable rate to send a letter, or I can go to FedEx and get it done quickly for more money. Those who can't afford FedEx can still mail a letter via the government, and those who can afford it get better service and a tracking number via the private sector. Not a perfect example, but I think meeting in the middle ground to suit everyone's needs makes a lot more sense than the extremism so enjoyed by both sides of the argument. NO ONE in a modern, civilized society should die because they couldn't afford medical treatment, under any circumstances. There's absolutely no excuse for that. At a certain point we have a responsibility to better ourselves as a society, not just protect one interest or another.
- notthemama, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1"Why can't we have private healthcare AND reliable federal healthcare?"
Nope. Not with current rules in place. The feds have been heavily involved in medical care for decades. Any health care provider has to either spend major money and time in dealing with the forms, regulations, and rules, which raises their costs and thus the costs of all patients, or refuse to take any insurance or medicare payments.
But on your other point, no one who needs care is turned away even if they can't pay but it's usually paid for by the hospitals pro-bono funds and absorbed by charging $40 for soap to other patients. - LuaPron, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1I think whatever socialized health care that does exist should be done at the state level.
It is the federal government that marches off to war at the drop of a hat. It is the federal government that is actively engaged in a war against our freedom. I don't think they should get a penny for anything if they're going to blow it the way they always do.
I don't even like state run health care, but I can tolerate it. It simply becomes incredibly dangerous when all the money gets put in a single pot. We can talk about corporations screwing their customers out of money and we can talk about government waste and scandals. In the end, I simply don't want my money going to the people that want to follow in the footsteps of the worst tyrants of the 20th century.
- notthemama, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1"Why can't we have private healthcare AND reliable federal healthcare?"
- Trav31
- minoss, on 12/21/2007, -40/+17Yes, much better to leave it up to government. They always get everything right and aren't corrupt or wasteful in the least.