Universal Health Ins? The Candidates.
#106
Re: Universal Health Ins? The Candidates.
Yep. Far South Texas doesn't have the resources for great health care -- it contains some of the poorest counties in the country.
#107
Re: Universal Health Ins? The Candidates.
take it outside ??? i havent been in a flamewar since i was like 14 . I am i not wasting my time getting worked up over someone i will never meet face to face . sorry there are better things to do . if you want to start a topic on health care and keep it on that topic this time i will be happy share my thoughts with you .
#108
Re: Universal Health Ins? The Candidates.
take it outside ??? i havent been in a flamewar since i was like 14 . I am i not wasting my time getting worked up over someone i will never meet face to face . sorry there are better things to do . if you want to start a topic on health care and keep it on that topic this time i will be happy share my thoughts with you .
#109
Homebody
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: HOME
Posts: 23,179
Re: Universal Health Ins? The Candidates.
"The family of a California teenager plan to sue her health insurer which refused to pay for a liver transplant until hours before and she died on Thursday night.
Her family's lawyer, Mark Geragos, will ask the Los Angeles district attorney to press murder or manslaughter charges against Cigna HealthCare, arguing that the firm "maliciously killed" Nataline Sarkisyan by its reluctance to pay for her treatment. The company reversed its stance after protesters called for a rethink, but the decision came too late.
..........
The company recently posted figures for its third-quarter performance this year, which showed profits up 22%. Next year it expects to earn an income of up to $1.2bn."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2231379,00.html
Her family's lawyer, Mark Geragos, will ask the Los Angeles district attorney to press murder or manslaughter charges against Cigna HealthCare, arguing that the firm "maliciously killed" Nataline Sarkisyan by its reluctance to pay for her treatment. The company reversed its stance after protesters called for a rethink, but the decision came too late.
..........
The company recently posted figures for its third-quarter performance this year, which showed profits up 22%. Next year it expects to earn an income of up to $1.2bn."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2231379,00.html
#110
Re: Universal Health Ins? The Candidates.
I'm not in any way condoning their actions or arguing with the conclusion, but in the interest of having a meaningful debate about this, the article does also say,
"The 17-year-old from Glendale, California, had been in a coma for weeks after complications following a bone marrow transplant to counter leukaemia.
After the operation, her liver failed and doctors referred her for an emergency transplant. "
I wonder if the real reason the insurance company declined to authorize was because they felt it was not going to prolong the patient's life in a meaningful way. Of course that's a very controversial position that they cannot officially take, but it's probably what they really thought - since the operation was clearly not 'experimental' in any way. Maybe it was 'experimental' to see if a liver transplant would 'do good' with a patient already in a coma.
I mention this because last night I was reading an article entitled "No cure for Medical Madness", written by a UK doctor (I believe - "The article is based on an address given in the House of Lords"). While the overall article is focused on Euthanasia, which is completely un-related to the story at hand, it does have this general observation that may be of relevance:
========== Begin extract ===============
Medicine gone mad
We have to recognise that part of the pressure for medical killing is over-treatment. Many so-called advances are merely medicine gone mad, delivered by doctors who cannot face “failure”. Quality of life can disappear under a forest of needles, wires, electronic gadgets and surgical proceedures.
...
Others in coma following accidents or strokes often linger for months, hovering in that twilight zone between life and death, sustained by massive effort even when there is no hope of meaningful future existence.
From this page: http://www.globalchange.com/euthandt.htm
========= End Extract ===============
In this particular case, we are talking about a teenager and I'd err on the side of doing the operation, especially since the family wanted it, but it's worth not losing sight of this. I wonder if, in some countries, the operation would not have been considered in the first place.
Also - completely different angle on this - I wonder how 'blameless' the doctors are in this situation. The doctors recommended the operation; the doctors had the power to act; since this was a very controversial situation, the hospital could have chosen to go ahead, and really embarrassed the insurance company. Doctors are 'required' to recommend procedures and they do so many times to avoid becoming the subject of lawsuits themselves. So the Doctors pass the buck to the insurance companies. Again, I have no sympathy for insurance companies, but this is a complex issue and I'm not sure this is the best example to use to highlight the failings of the US system (of which there are many!).
"The 17-year-old from Glendale, California, had been in a coma for weeks after complications following a bone marrow transplant to counter leukaemia.
After the operation, her liver failed and doctors referred her for an emergency transplant. "
I wonder if the real reason the insurance company declined to authorize was because they felt it was not going to prolong the patient's life in a meaningful way. Of course that's a very controversial position that they cannot officially take, but it's probably what they really thought - since the operation was clearly not 'experimental' in any way. Maybe it was 'experimental' to see if a liver transplant would 'do good' with a patient already in a coma.
I mention this because last night I was reading an article entitled "No cure for Medical Madness", written by a UK doctor (I believe - "The article is based on an address given in the House of Lords"). While the overall article is focused on Euthanasia, which is completely un-related to the story at hand, it does have this general observation that may be of relevance:
========== Begin extract ===============
Medicine gone mad
We have to recognise that part of the pressure for medical killing is over-treatment. Many so-called advances are merely medicine gone mad, delivered by doctors who cannot face “failure”. Quality of life can disappear under a forest of needles, wires, electronic gadgets and surgical proceedures.
...
Others in coma following accidents or strokes often linger for months, hovering in that twilight zone between life and death, sustained by massive effort even when there is no hope of meaningful future existence.
From this page: http://www.globalchange.com/euthandt.htm
========= End Extract ===============
In this particular case, we are talking about a teenager and I'd err on the side of doing the operation, especially since the family wanted it, but it's worth not losing sight of this. I wonder if, in some countries, the operation would not have been considered in the first place.
Also - completely different angle on this - I wonder how 'blameless' the doctors are in this situation. The doctors recommended the operation; the doctors had the power to act; since this was a very controversial situation, the hospital could have chosen to go ahead, and really embarrassed the insurance company. Doctors are 'required' to recommend procedures and they do so many times to avoid becoming the subject of lawsuits themselves. So the Doctors pass the buck to the insurance companies. Again, I have no sympathy for insurance companies, but this is a complex issue and I'm not sure this is the best example to use to highlight the failings of the US system (of which there are many!).
#111
Re: Universal Health Ins? The Candidates.
I've been reading quite a bit about this topic over the past few weeks. One article (can't find a link now) suggests the girl was PUT into a coma by the doctors to prolong her life (I guess, 'slow down' her system) while they battled with the insurance company. I'll be looking out for this subject over the next few months/years (I'm sure it will drag on that long).
I also got an alarming email from an old work colleague this week. His wife has MS - Multiple Sclerosis. When she could no longer work, she tried to claim against the 'disability insurance' she had been paying into for the past 10 years. Turns out the ins. co. were able to decline her because MS is not an easily 'proven' disease - you can't just run a battery of tests and say, "yep, that's MS". They tried several avenues, but they were blocked each time. The final option was to file a high-profile lawsuit, which they declined to do because a) the lawyers get up to 60% of any award, and b) the insurance company can deny them again after 3 years, forcing them to start the whole legal proces over again.
This guy is a smart, analytical type of guy, not one to be easily brushed off by some ins. co. clerks, so I have to believe he really tried every avenue. This is apparently common with MS due to it's lack of well-defined 'indicators'.
Even more bizarre, she is able to qualify for disability under the social security system, and gets medicare, etc (even though she's only in her 40s) - so while the social security system recognize her condition, the insurance company still deny she has anything 'real' and continue to prevail in denying the claim.
This is beyond comprehension ...
I also got an alarming email from an old work colleague this week. His wife has MS - Multiple Sclerosis. When she could no longer work, she tried to claim against the 'disability insurance' she had been paying into for the past 10 years. Turns out the ins. co. were able to decline her because MS is not an easily 'proven' disease - you can't just run a battery of tests and say, "yep, that's MS". They tried several avenues, but they were blocked each time. The final option was to file a high-profile lawsuit, which they declined to do because a) the lawyers get up to 60% of any award, and b) the insurance company can deny them again after 3 years, forcing them to start the whole legal proces over again.
This guy is a smart, analytical type of guy, not one to be easily brushed off by some ins. co. clerks, so I have to believe he really tried every avenue. This is apparently common with MS due to it's lack of well-defined 'indicators'.
Even more bizarre, she is able to qualify for disability under the social security system, and gets medicare, etc (even though she's only in her 40s) - so while the social security system recognize her condition, the insurance company still deny she has anything 'real' and continue to prevail in denying the claim.
This is beyond comprehension ...