http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2231379,00.html

cigna denied a legitimate liver transplant procedure to a 17-year-old girl in a coma and she subsequently died. when i read this this morning i wanted to throw the paper across the room. i wonder how much longer we're gonna put up with crap like this.

hey right-wingers! you can't privatize everything in the entire world. it doesn't work as well as you think. >:(

***

Insurer's U-turn too late to save life of transplant teenager


· Lawyer wants company to be charged with murder
· Death inflames debate over US healthcare system

Ed Pilkington in New York
Saturday December 22, 2007
The Guardian

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.

here's another link about this story with comments that reflect an appropriate level of revulsion and outrage.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/21/nataline-sarkisyan-passes-away-shame-on-cigna/

i think crooksandliars might become my new favorite website. >:(

Ugh, I read this story yesterday and it just pissed me off. I hate the way insurance compannies drag their asses until it's too late. And it happens more than you think. ::)

  I think the most telling part is the part that wasn't told.  Sure, we can argue that perhaps the insurance company should have covered the costs of the procedure, but in the end we don't really know what the policy was or how it was administered...

  In reality, isn't it the hospital who would be most at fault here?  The insurance company couldn't actually perform the procedure, even if they could help to financially enable it.  If the hospital refused to treat this girl simply because the insurance company wouldn't pay for it, then they're no better than CIGNA is...

  In fact, IMO, they're worse.  They had the facility, the expertise, and, presumably, both a donor kidney and reason to believe a transplant was required to save the girl's life.  They also had the responsibility, I believe, to do the right thing...

   I think the most telling part is the part that wasn't told.  Sure, we can argue that perhaps the insurance company should have covered the costs of the procedure, but in the end we don't really know what the policy was or how it was administered...

   In reality, isn't it the hospital who would be most at fault here?  The insurance company couldn't actually perform the procedure, even if they could help to financially enable it.  If the hospital refused to treat this girl simply because the insurance company wouldn't pay for it, then they're no better than CIGNA is...

   In fact, IMO, they're worse.  They had the facility, the expertise, and, presumably, both a donor kidney and reason to believe a transplant was required to save the girl's life.  They also had the responsibility, I believe, to do the right thing...


Good point. It did say in the article that they couldn't afford the down payment for it, but that shouldn't have mattered.

Politicians looking for something to beat their chests about, maybe...?

Good point. It did say in the article that they couldn't afford the down payment for it, but that shouldn't have mattered.

Politicians looking for something to beat their chests about, maybe...?
yeah, that is a good point davester made. when folks talk about instituting a government health system like they do in france, for instance, someone made the point that in france the doctors make something like $60,000 a year whereas here they make whatever exorbitant salary they make. so even if the health care system were made public it would still be incredibly expensive because we all have to subsidize america's doctors in the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed. ::)

naomi klein tells a story about a doctor she interviewed who did private practice in new orleans after katrina and was serving some kinda affluent gated community or something... she interviews him and says, oh, so did you do any work in the ninth ward or anything like that? and he says no, thank god. like it didnt occur to him to volunteer. which of course is his choice but i think it shows a cultural sea change in the way doctors think of their profession -- more as a way to get a fat check than as a way to actually help people. it's damn sad. and it seems like the same thinking was at work here. it just wouldn't occur to them to do the operation for free and hope for compensation later, even with a human life hanging in the balance.

at the same time, though, blaming the insurance company rather than the hospital might yield more just in terms of bringing about the change in political climate needed to reform the system.

Good point. It did say in the article that they couldn't afford the down payment for it, but that shouldn't have mattered.

Politicians looking for something to beat their chests about, maybe...?


  And those who beat their chests the loudest will still have no solution...

  It's like this vicious, neverending cycle of repetitive redundancy over and over, again...
 

   I fudged, it was a liver not a kidney...


yeah, that is a good point davester made. when folks talk about instituting a government health system like they do in france, for instance, someone made the point that in france the doctors make something like $60,000 a year whereas here they make whatever exorbitant salary they make. so even if the health care system were made public it would still be incredibly expensive because we all have to subsidize america's doctors in the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed. ::)

naomi klein tells a story about a doctor she interviewed who did private practice in new orleans after katrina and was serving some kinda affluent gated community or something... she interviews him and says, oh, so did you do any work in the ninth ward or anything like that? and he says no, thank god. like it didnt occur to him to volunteer. which of course is his choice but i think it shows a cultural sea change in the way doctors think of their profession -- more as a way to get a fat check than as a way to actually help people. it's damn sad. and it seems like the same thinking was at work here. it just wouldn't occur to them to do the operation for free and hope for compensation later, even with a human life hanging in the balance.

at the same time, though, blaming the insurance company rather than the hospital might yield more just in terms of bringing about the change in political climate needed to reform the system.



   Agreed.  Socialized health care has been teetering around as our next step in the good ol' FDR welfare program that brought us out of the Great Depression.  To establish such a health care program would mean that capitalism in the health care industry is a complete failure, and it is necessary for the government to intervene...

  Wanted to add:  Health care is an extremely tough one.  And I don't think it possible to satisfy every interest, eg. someone has to take it in the shorts.  Nah, maybe not.  Just compromise a little...

  Universal is but one concession, among others, I'm willing to make...

  Something Davey once said comes to mind - I'll try to capture the essence:  "Politics don't matter when you're dead..."

   

   I think the most telling part is the part that wasn't told.  Sure, we can argue that perhaps the insurance company should have covered the costs of the procedure, but in the end we don't really know what the policy was or how it was administered...

   In reality, isn't it the hospital who would be most at fault here?  The insurance company couldn't actually perform the procedure, even if they could help to financially enable it.  If the hospital refused to treat this girl simply because the insurance company wouldn't pay for it, then they're no better than CIGNA is...

   In fact, IMO, they're worse.  They had the facility, the expertise, and, presumably, both a donor kidney and reason to believe a transplant was required to save the girl's life.  They also had the responsibility, I believe, to do the right thing...


I guess I must be in the minority here.  I've never quite understood the Hippocratic Oath.  I realize that medicine is one of the only businesses where not providing services can kill someone, but I see it like this.  If you can't pay, then why should I serve you?

I think the insurance company is really the one to blame here if you're going to point the finger.  The hospital may have had the resources, but the insurance company had the money and most likely had the policy set up to provide for this.

Insurance companies are notorious for trying to gyp their clients, whereas hospitals will often eat costs just to help people.  So Dave, the insurance company is really the group I blame on this one.  Insurance companies are the scum of the earth, whereas doctors usually save people's lives.

I don't think socializing healthcare at the federal level is the answer here.  Socializing at the state level is a better idea in my mind.  Until then, we need to change laws so that HMO's are more liable and so that pharmaceutical companies can't overcharge so much.

I guess I must be in the minority here.  I've never quite understood the Hippocratic Oath.  I realize that medicine is one of the only businesses where not providing services can kill someone, but I see it like this.  If you can't pay, then why should I serve you?


  I know what you're saying about the oath.  It's more complicated than that...

  I'm simply saying that we cannot look simply at CIGNA as the bad guy here, which is the focus of the article and to a large degree the discussion that's taken place about that article.  If it's okay for the hospital to act in its own (and/or their constituents') best interests, then it should also be okay for CIGNA to do the same without being thrown under the bus for doing it...

  It's no one's responsibility to keep me alive, although I'm appreciative to everyone who's working to that end...



I think the insurance company is really the one to blame here if you're going to point the finger.  The hospital may have had the resources, but the insurance company had the money and most likely had the policy set up to provide for this.

Insurance companies are notorious for trying to gyp their clients, whereas hospitals will often eat costs just to help people.  So Dave, the insurance company is really the group I blame on this one.  Insurance companies are the scum of the earth, whereas doctors usually save people's lives.

I don't think socializing healthcare at the federal level is the answer here.  Socializing at the state level is a better idea in my mind.  Until then, we need to change laws so that HMO's are more liable and so that pharmaceutical companies can't overcharge so much.


  Instead of socialized how about subsidized?  Or am I just pissing up a semantic rope..?

  Some say doctors bill excessively for their services.  I think, most of the time, the complainants are the health insurers.  On the flip side, doctors argue that their bills are not paid entirely by the insurer, and they don't recover the customary remaining 20% even 50% of the time, which requires them to increase their hourly or service fee to reach a median income for their specialty...

  If we are truly a class-based economic society (working class, lower class, middle, and so on), wouldn't doctors profit most by tailoring their services to the middle-class income rate?  The government can then subsidize, as opposed to socialize, the lower and working classes to make up the difference, which could be funded by appropriations of present tax revenues.  Alternatively, the battle between doctor and insurer could then balance itself out in the actual marketplace, as opposed to the present state of the two party "bargain"...

  What say you..?

Look, it's only a million dollars to get to the top of the list.  You don't like the free market or something?  If you wanna lie around in a hospital with your lazy rear end in a coma, then go right ahead and die.  Now, if you want to go out and hustle for a buck the American way, then you might choose life!

http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/06/2007-06-13RushLimbaugh.jpg

Some say doctors bill excessively for their services.  I think, most of the time, the complainants are the health insurers.  On the flip side, doctors argue that their bills are not paid entirely by the insurer, and they don't recover the customary remaining 20% even 50% of the time, which requires them to increase their hourly or service fee to reach a median income for their specialty...

I almost never blame the doctors for rising costs because they're just reacting to the situation that insurance companies and lawsuits have put them in.  It's not the insurance executive's career on the line if a patient gets harmed in an operation.  Doctors, by virtue of their responsibility level, seem like decent people that aren't really trying to hurt consumers.

Insurance companies, on the other hand, are specifically designed to profit most from situations where they still charge fees but deny coverage.  It's basically a legal form of scamming people.

If we are truly a class-based economic society (working class, lower class, middle, and so on), wouldn't doctors profit most by tailoring their services to the middle-class income rate?  The government can then subsidize, as opposed to socialize, the lower and working classes to make up the difference, which could be funded by appropriations of present tax revenues.  Alternatively, the battle between doctor and insurer could then balance itself out in the actual marketplace, as opposed to the present state of the two party "bargain"...

   What say you..?


That might work, but I figure socialization at a state level would be more effective than subsidization, because subsidies still put the power in the hands of corporations and insurance companies, who, under that system, would have it in their best interests to claim higher costs than they actually have.  It's kind of like how contractors in Iraq overcharge our government due to the ridiculous cost-plus arrangement.

If state governments actually ran healthcare, there would be a direct connection to the people when it comes to power.  In most industries, I prefer privatization, but I believe healthcare is so central to our livelihoods that government control is almost mandatory.

While it is true many "frivolous" malpractice suits are brought, almost all are dismissed before even court costs amount to much. 

I've seen this happen where I work. 

For example, the patient has a spinal cord injury.  Dr. A does not recommend surgical consultation.  The patient's condition degenerates and he becomes paralysed.  Dr. B, the spine surgeon, tells the patient he would have recommended surgical procedure X, which may have prevented paralysis.  The patient is understandably enraged.  He sues Dr. A. 

Dr. A brings to court his records of the patient's treatment course and demonstrates he was thoroughly attentive to the patient's condition and prescribed tests, treatments, and therapies within bounds of acceptable medical care by AMA guidelines.  Thus, the court finds the patient's suit has no standing and dismisses it.  It is not "malpractice" for a doctor to make a judgment call that turns out to be incorrect. 

The "frivolous" malpractice suit is a red herring.  Those who would put caps on personal damages would end up protecting quacks and slobs who should not be in practice in the first place. 

I guess I must be in the minority here.  I've never quite understood the Hippocratic Oath.  I realize that medicine is one of the only businesses where not providing services can kill someone, but I see it like this.  If you can't pay, then why should I serve you?

that's so heartwarming! :(

I guess I must be in the minority here.  I've never quite understood the Hippocratic Oath.  I realize that medicine is one of the only businesses where not providing services can kill someone, but I see it like this.  If you can't pay, then why should I serve you?





I would think because being a human being is a singular experience, as is mental and physical anguish/pain, as is death.  The skill to alleviate pain and suffering is a singular skill. To deny relief based on social or financial standing is collectively dehumanizing.  What do you suggest the poor do?


BRING OUT YOUR DEAD

http://affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/imagesgrail-bring-out-your-dead-small1.jpg

Something Davey once said comes to mind - I'll try to capture the essence:  "Politics don't matter when you're dead..."


F**kin A Bro.


I guess I must be in the minority here.  I've never quite understood the Hippocratic Oath.  I realize that medicine is one of the only businesses where not providing services can kill someone, but I see it like this.  If you can't pay, then why should I serve you?


Because at the end of the day, anybody with a shred of decency would do their best to prevent somebody from dieing.

I've said before, Healthcare has nothing to do with money, it has nothing to do with politics, it has nothing to do with ideaology. It has everything to do with helping to save people's lives.

Here's a good one for you and this is the god's honest truth.

If that little girl were my daughter or my sister or.. whatever. I'd work tirelessly to find out who refused to sign off on the treatment.. and then I'd kill them. Because from where I'm sitting, they murdered this young girl.

At least 10 states that I know of have Single-Payer Universal Health Care bill floating around in their house and Senate waiting to be voted on.  In PA we have Senate bill 300 and it's House bill 1660.  This grassroots bill has unfortunately been overshadowed by Governor Ed Rendell's bill that caters too the insurance industry.  (Looks like a Universal Health Care bill but isn't.)  The insurance industry lobbyist are having a hard time killing the grassroot bill, why?  Because it reflects the will of the people.  The sad thing is while this battle is raging it's costing people lives.

I guess I must be in the minority here.  I've never quite understood the Hippocratic Oath.  I realize that medicine is one of the only businesses where not providing services can kill someone, but I see it like this.  If you can't pay, then why should I serve you?


That's the point of the Oath though. To help your fellow man, regardless of if they can afford to pay.

I'd hate to live in a world where helping people was frowned upon, just because they don't have enough money to be worthy. ::)

I would think because being a human being is a singular experience, as is mental and physical anguish/pain, as is death.  The skill to alleviate pain and suffering is a singular skill. To deny relief based on social or financial standing is collectively dehumanizing.  What do you suggest the poor do?


Not be poor. 

That's why I referred to Rush.  If you can sell the idea that poverty is voluntary and there is nothing holding anyone back from wealth unless they're lazy, you can justify all kinds of inhumane social policies. 

In this case, "poverty" didn't enter into the question.  It's not like you can just order a new liver from Bud's Discount Vital Organs.  Maybe some oil sheik could afford to pay cash for a liver and the medical team to perform the operation.  For 99.99% of us, if we were so unfortunate as to need a liver transplant, time is crucial and we would need the cooperation of either private insurance or state funds to pay the bill. 

As legal analyst Norman Goldman said: "Insurance companies only like money flowing one way--their way." 

It's easy to demonize CIGNA (and I do), but I also demonize the state for enslaving itself to insurance lobby bribes and forfeiting their ability to regulate the industry on life-and-death matters.  At the very least, the state could have bypassed CIGNA and paid for this young woman's liver transplant.  The only people who would object to taxpayer dollars paying for healthcare in this case are Rush and his dittoheads. 

Let's face it.  Times change.  Until the 1960s there was no such a thing as a liver transplant.  You just died.  In fact, for most of human history life-threatening diseases and injuries killed you because medicine had no answers.  Thus, we didn't have to worry about cost.  Heart failure would kill the king as quick as it would kill the peasant.  Now medicine is such that you don't have to die from 95% of the illnesses that used to kill you, but it costs money to save lives.  If we pick and choose who lives and who dies by ability to pay, then we rank the value of human life by wealth. 

The very same right-wingers who would have shrieked about the value of all human life if that young woman's mother had decided to have an abortion in 1990 now object to government interference in private insurance when it comes to saving her life seventeen years later.  The same Pat Robertson-type evangelicals who believe it is an act of Christian love to block the doors to abortion clinics say nothing when health care policies, both private and public, allow unnecessary deaths to save a buck. 

That's the point of the Oath though. To help your fellow man, regardless of if they can afford to pay.

I'd hate to live in a world where helping people was frowned upon, just because they don't have enough money to be worthy. ::)


  To die of thirst in the middle of an ocean...

This is disgusting. I want to vomit. Criminal charges need to be laid against a few people here. Criminal negligence resulting in death of an innocent CHILD with a whole life ahead of her. Heads must roll for this.

And you would think this would be the last straw, but it won't be. How many more people have to die needlessly before people start waking the **** up and realising that their whole lives they've been conditioned to accept the idea that the US government can do anything it wants (making missiles, super technological equipment, go invading any country, vanquish any enemy etc..) but this same superpower of a country can't even provide decent health insurance for so many of its own citizens.

I don't give a ****, you people who defend that system, and who hold that EVERY other western democracy in the world has it all wrong by keeping the well-being of their own citizens at the top of all their priorities, I just gotta tell ya: you're wrong, dead wrong.

I just don't understand, people, you can spend billions on weapons, wars, corporate welfare, and you can even waste billions maintaining a healthcare system that is dysfunctional and unjust, but you are totally unwilling to do the one thing that people really want you to. GIVE THEM SOCIAL JUSTICE!

The United States government needs to stop being Mr. Big Shot, bullying everyone into obedience (its own citizens more than anyone else), and start getting its sh!t together at home.

Dear America,

  You're dead to me.

Sincerely,

James.

This is disgusting. I want to vomit. Criminal charges need to be laid against a few people here. Criminal negligence resulting in death of an innocent CHILD with a whole life ahead of her. Heads must roll for this.

And you would think this would be the last straw, but it won't be. How many more people have to die needlessly before people start waking the **** up and realising that their whole lives they've been conditioned to accept the idea that the US government can do anything it wants (making missiles, super technological equipment, go invading any country, vanquish any enemy etc..) but this same superpower of a country can't even provide decent health insurance for so many of its own citizens.

I don't give a ****, you people who defend that system, and who hold that EVERY other western democracy in the world has it all wrong by keeping the well-being of their own citizens at the top of all their priorities, I just gotta tell ya: you're wrong, dead wrong.

I just don't understand, people, you can spend billions on weapons, wars, corporate welfare, and you can even waste billions maintaining a healthcare system that is dysfunctional and unjust, but you are totally unwilling to do the one thing that people really want you to. GIVE THEM SOCIAL JUSTICE!

The United States government needs to stop being Mr. Big Shot, bullying everyone into obedience (its own citizens more than anyone else), and start getting its sh!t together at home.

Dear America,

   You're dead to me.

Sincerely,

James.

i hear you man, and share your outrage. i think you said it better than anyone, up to the very last -- but this isn't the time to think america is "dead to me," it's the time to think this government is no longer working for anyone but the select few -- and as you point out, regular americans are suffering right along with everyone else. which i think is the point of this story... that it's time to really start sticking up for america, against those who pretend to love her but would in fact leave her citizens to die if they think it could make them a profit.

this isn't the time to give up on america, but the time to spoil her with love, and most of all that means really standing up against the people who would do her wrong. and right now, to me, that's the corporatists, the christists and the war profiteers.

course, how one does that in reality, rather than in rage-fueled but impotent posts on the internet, that's another matter entirely. :(

i hear you man, and share your outrage. i think you said it better than anyone, up to the very last -- but this isn't the time to think america is "dead to me," it's the time to think this government is no longer working for anyone but the select few -- and as you point out, regular americans are suffering right along with everyone else. which i think is the point of this story... that it's time to really start sticking up for america, against those who pretend to love her but would in fact leave her citizens to die if they think it could make them a profit.

this isn't the time to give up on america, but the time to spoil her with love, and most of all that means really standing up against the people who would do her wrong. and right now, to me, that's the corporatists, the christists and the war profiteers.

course, how one does that in reality, rather than in rage-fueled but impotent posts on the internet, that's another matter entirely. :(


I hope things in the States get better, but in my personal life there has been a severance between the regular people living in the US and the actual idea of US nationality, national symbols, government institutions etc... For the former, I care profoundly. For the latter, I could give a rat's ass. I admit that there was a time in my life where I respected those institutions, until I reached the age (about 15/16) where I started to realise that they don't work for the average person and they were never even meant to.

When I think of that half of myself (the American half) I can only call myself a de facto American, it's just a passport (one of two, luckily) that I only have to use when I present myself at a US point of entry any time I want to visit the only real connection I have left to that country, my family. A big connection, to be sure. It's for their benefit that I hope for better things for the US, not because I carry some vague ideal of America in my heart or something sentimental and useless like that. The system in the US is meant to defeat you, you can fight against it all you want, but give me one example of the people winning. You think of the 60's, but they didn't do anything but screw and smoke drugs for ten years before becoming nice little conservatives like their parents and voting for Reagan. I can think of two instances in the 200+ year history of the US where people were able to eradicate a truly great injustice: the abolition of slavery (in exchange for economic slavery, youpi!), and women's suffrage. That's about it. But never was there a time where the government was really put in its place as the servant of the people, instead of vice versa.

The US will eventually get universal healthcare, but the injustice we've seen here with this poor girl is just the tip of the iceberg. To whom, I ask you, is the US government truly accountable to? And don't give me any balony about 'voters'. It's a rhetorical question, we both know the answer.

With this particular case, would I be an insensitive a-hole for bringing up this?:

"Please, read the article from yesterday.

“Nataline Sarkisyan, 17, of Northridge is in the intensive care unit at UCLA Medical Center in Westwood, and her mother says she has been in a vegetative state for three weeks. ”

Now, I’m all for bashing the CIGNA for this, but if she really was in a vegetative state, aka no chance of coming back, then a transplant would indeed be a waste of resources. Give the liver to someone who will live and recover. It sucks, but that’s the better choice.

Now, this is all based on what are still flimsy details at this point. If she wasn’t in a true vegetative state (aka, she’ll recover), or she was in a coma because of the lack of a liver, a liver that was denied 3 weeks ago before the ‘vegitative state’, then by all means, CIGNA needs bashing."

~~~

I agree 100% with this post. While I think that healthcare here is a cruel joke and that Cigna was in the wrong for denying a liver transplant on the basis of reported “... does not cover experimental, investigational and unproven services", I'm also torn by the fact that if I were in a vegetative state I would not want resources wasted on me. I'm also torn on the possibility (probability?) that a timely liver transplant may not have saved what was left of her life.

:-\\

Ant

I hope things in the States get better, but in my personal life there has been a severance between the regular people living in the US and the actual idea of US nationality, national symbols, government institutions etc... For the former, I care profoundly. For the latter, I could give a rat's ass. I admit that there was a time in my life where I respected those institutions, until I reached the age (about 15/16) where I started to realise that they don't work for the average person and they were never even meant to.

When I think of that half of myself (the American half) I can only call myself a de facto American, it's just a passport (one of two, luckily) that I only have to use when I present myself at a US point of entry any time I want to visit the only real connection I have left to that country, my family. A big connection, to be sure. It's for their benefit that I hope for better things for the US, not because I carry some vague ideal of America in my heart or something sentimental and useless like that. The system in the US is meant to defeat you, you can fight against it all you want, but give me one example of the people winning. You think of the 60's, but they didn't do anything but screw and smoke drugs for ten years before becoming nice little conservatives like their parents and voting for Reagan. I can think of two instances in the 200+ year history of the US where people were able to eradicate a truly great injustice: the abolition of slavery (in exchange for economic slavery, youpi!), and women's suffrage. That's about it. But never was there a time where the government was really put in its place as the servant of the people, instead of vice versa.

The US will eventually get universal healthcare, but the injustice we've seen here with this poor girl is just the tip of the iceberg. To whom, I ask you, is the US government truly accountable to? And don't give me any balony about 'voters'. It's a rhetorical question, we both know the answer.
well, i guess the kind of patriotism i'd like to see more of around here is a willingness to fight back against people who generalize about people because they're american, or assume we're all rich or fat or lazy or some such, when nothing could be further from the truth -- and also that the things that make this country great (and there are, of course, just as there's good and bad in every country) dont get swept under the rug just because some religious fanatics and corporate shills managed to rig an election and take advantage of the worst attack in our history to dismantle our public infrastructure for fun and profit. i dunno, it saddens me that the right has polluted the symbols of america for their screwed up agenda, because before the bush administration came to power these symbols were at least ambivalent, now they just seem around the world to be about as popular as the swastika. ::) i dunno, it kinda breaks my heart.

but i basically agree with most of what you say. part of it might have to do with something inherent in the american identity -- there's something about manifest destiny and the idea that capitalism would sweep over the planet to liberate all the peoples of the world that strikes me as obviously utopian, in the old-school nazi-slash-communist vein. people who think they're gonna save the world usually just end up screwing it up royally and maybe the idea of american exceptionalism was always destined to lead us here. but i like to think if we can excise that from our body politic there's another american identity underneath it somewhere, something more humble and generous and easier to be proud of. i actually found that historically americans have been fairly popular when they travel abroad, generally speaking, until all this hideous crap went down. maybe we can get back to that again.

i dunno, i'm digressing. and also babbling.

With this particular case, would I be an insensitive a-hole for bringing up this?:

"Please, read the article from yesterday.

“Nataline Sarkisyan, 17, of Northridge is in the intensive care unit at UCLA Medical Center in Westwood, and her mother says she has been in a vegetative state for three weeks. ”

Now, I’m all for bashing the CIGNA for this, but if she really was in a vegetative state, aka no chance of coming back, then a transplant would indeed be a waste of resources. Give the liver to someone who will live and recover. It sucks, but that’s the better choice.

Now, this is all based on what are still flimsy details at this point. If she wasn’t in a true vegetative state (aka, she’ll recover), or she was in a coma because of the lack of a liver, a liver that was denied 3 weeks ago before the ‘vegitative state’, then by all means, CIGNA needs bashing."

~~~

I agree 100% with this post. While I think that healthcare here is a cruel joke and that Cigna was in the wrong for denying a liver transplant on the basis of reported “... does not cover experimental, investigational and unproven services", I'm also torn by the fact that if I were in a vegetative state I would not want resources wasted on me. I'm also torn on the possibility (probability?) that a timely liver transplant may not have saved what was left of her life.

:-\\

Ant
i think the girl was comatose, not vegetative, and the mother used the wrong term. she may have recovered and may have not, but i dont think she had flat brain activity the way terry schiavo did. i could be mistaken. it seems that if she was genuinely vegetative cigna would have been quick to deny the claim on that basis rather than prevaricating about experimental procedures. but again, i'd have to go back through the article. anyway, they said her condition worsened somewhere in her final hours. i dont know if people who are vegetative have their conditions "worsen" like that. but i'm not a doctor.

it's odd, all these stories have quotes from various people arguing back and forth he-said-she-said about the case but hardly any of the stories have many actual facts in them. ??? the point you make, though, is a good one... this case is getting around because it seems to sum up and epitomize a more widespread issue with health care in america. but if she actually WAS incurable by the time cigna refused the treatment, this is probably not the best case to take up for that purpose, because the fox news punks will totally seize on any flaw in the argument that cigna is responsible for her death and will probably end up "swiftboating" the family, and it'll actually end up setting the cause back rather than move it forward. sad but true.

With this particular case, would I be an insensitive a-hole for bringing up this?:

"Please, read the article from yesterday.

“Nataline Sarkisyan, 17, of Northridge is in the intensive care unit at UCLA Medical Center in Westwood, and her mother says she has been in a vegetative state for three weeks. ”

Now, I’m all for bashing the CIGNA for this, but if she really was in a vegetative state, aka no chance of coming back, then a transplant would indeed be a waste of resources. Give the liver to someone who will live and recover. It sucks, but that’s the better choice.




When CIGNA inititially denied the request for the liver she was in much better shape.  It was in the time between the initial denial and the ok that her condition deteriorated.  When the ok came it was too late.

Speaking of *vegetative," where was the Terry Schiavo fanclub in this case?
Wanted to give put that poor woman to rest after sixteen years of being a living corpse and the right-to-lifers went fogging nots!  Schiavo didn't come back, wasn't coming back, and never was coming back; tests proved she was blind, so she wasn't following that dumb old balloon with her eyes, plus her brain was mostly spinal fluid by that point.  But noooooo, it's equivalent to Auschwitz to remover her from life support!

Yet this young lady had only been in a three-week coma and needed a new liver...yet there was no Terry Schiavo-type campaign for her life.  What gives?
???

Speaking of *vegetative," where was the Terry Schiavo fanclub in this case?
Wanted to give put that poor woman to rest after sixteen years of being a living corpse and the right-to-lifers went fogging nots!  Schiavo didn't come back, wasn't coming back, and never was coming back; tests proved she was blind, so she wasn't following that dumb old balloon with her eyes, plus her brain was mostly spinal fluid by that point.  But noooooo, it's equivalent to Auschwitz to remover her from life support!

Yet this young lady had only been in a three-week coma and needed a new liver...yet there was no Terry Schiavo-type campaign for her life.  What gives?
???


Read Michael Schiavo's book.  It's amazing how much lobbying and browbeating her family did.  Terri Schiavo was a political agenda to most not a human being let alone a brain dead one.  In answer to your question perhaps someone should pose that question to the Terri Schiavo foundation.  Hey, I think I will.

In this case, the hospital should have done something instead of waiting on the insurance company.  But that doesnt mean our health care system doesnt work.  Sure its not the BEST, but its sure a heck of a lot better than a socialist health care system.  Everything has problems.  Democracy isn't perfect either, but its darn better than most other types of government.  All in all this situation should have been handled a lot better than it was.  When it comes down to it, it all goes back to ethics. 

Because at the end of the day, anybody with a shred of decency would do their best to prevent somebody from dieing.

I've said before, Healthcare has nothing to do with money, it has nothing to do with politics, it has nothing to do with ideaology. It has everything to do with helping to save people's lives.

Here's a good one for you and this is the god's honest truth.

If that little girl were my daughter or my sister or.. whatever. I'd work tirelessly to find out who refused to sign off on the treatment.. and then I'd kill them. Because from where I'm sitting, they murdered this young girl.

Um...  Yeah, well, I see where you're coming from, but you'd be spending quite a long time in jail if you did that.

Speaking of *vegetative," where was the Terry Schiavo fanclub in this case?
Wanted to give put that poor woman to rest after sixteen years of being a living corpse and the right-to-lifers went fogging nots!  Schiavo didn't come back, wasn't coming back, and never was coming back; tests proved she was blind, so she wasn't following that dumb old balloon with her eyes, plus her brain was mostly spinal fluid by that point.  But noooooo, it's equivalent to Auschwitz to remover her from life support!

Yet this young lady had only been in a three-week coma and needed a new liver...yet there was no Terry Schiavo-type campaign for her life.  What gives?
???


I totally agree.

In this case, the hospital should have done something instead of waiting on the insurance company.  But that doesnt mean our health care system doesnt work.  Sure its not the BEST, but its sure a heck of a lot better than a socialist health care system.  Everything has problems.  Democracy isn't perfect either, but its darn better than most other types of government.  All in all this situation should have been handled a lot better than it was.  When it comes down to it, it all goes back to ethics. 
this didnt happen because of democracy. it happened because of unregulated capitalism. the two get confused far too often.

and any system that does this is most decidedly NOT better than a "socialized" (read, tax-subsidized single-payer) system. i hate it when the word "socialist" is used to refer to any and all public sector spending. ::) it's such a word game.

Um...  Yeah, well, I see where you're coming from, but you'd be spending quite a long time in jail if you did that.


Yet if you kill in the name of cost-efficiency you won't go to jail.. what a bizarre way to run a society.

new conspiracy theory: money is actually a kind of virus, and human beings live solely to perpetuate it like an infection.

it's the only rational explanation for the cultural value system we seem to have these days where money is more important than human life.

Yet if you kill in the name of cost-efficiency you won't go to jail.. what a bizarre way to run a society.


Good point...  I'm not saying the current system is the most moral.  I'm just saying that killing someone out of inaction is a lot less likely to land you in jail than out of action.

EDIT: Another thing to consider is that this situation shows how important it is to make sure that you pick an insurer that is worth your trust.  When you choose a healthcare provider, you are literally putting your life in their hands, which is why I think we can agree that HMOs should be held more liable for their actions.

Good point...  I'm not saying the current system is the most moral.  I'm just saying that killing someone out of inaction is a lot less likely to land you in jail than out of action.

EDIT: Another thing to consider is that this situation shows how important it is to make sure that you pick an insurer that is worth your trust.  When you choose a healthcare provider, you are literally putting your life in their hands, which is why I think we can agree that HMOs should be held more liable for their actions.


Fair point, but how is Joe Schmuk like me supposed to know?

Fair point, but how is Joe Schmuk like me supposed to know?


There are a number of media sources out there that can help you out.  The internet is a great source for finding out things that the mainstream media doesn't report on.  Granted, I realize that, if you are like me and under a company plan, you don't really have a choice as to who your provider is.

This is disgusting. I want to vomit. Criminal charges need to be laid against a few people here. Criminal negligence resulting in death of an innocent CHILD with a whole life ahead of her. Heads must roll for this.

And you would think this would be the last straw, but it won't be. How many more people have to die needlessly before people start waking the **** up and realising that their whole lives they've been conditioned to accept the idea that the US government can do anything it wants (making missiles, super technological equipment, go invading any country, vanquish any enemy etc..) but this same superpower of a country can't even provide decent health insurance for so many of its own citizens.

I don't give a ****, you people who defend that system, and who hold that EVERY other western democracy in the world has it all wrong by keeping the well-being of their own citizens at the top of all their priorities, I just gotta tell ya: you're wrong, dead wrong.

I just don't understand, people, you can spend billions on weapons, wars, corporate welfare, and you can even waste billions maintaining a healthcare system that is dysfunctional and unjust, but you are totally unwilling to do the one thing that people really want you to. GIVE THEM SOCIAL JUSTICE!

The United States government needs to stop being Mr. Big Shot, bullying everyone into obedience (its own citizens more than anyone else), and start getting its sh!t together at home.

Dear America,

  You're dead to me.

Sincerely,

James.




http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/happy/applause.gif


You hit the nail right on the head-killing people are more important to the U.S. Government than healing them. The only time when people want to intervene with someone's medical woes is when it has to do with abortion (or when you have a case like Terry Schiavo. And when people start yelling for universal coverage, the opponents scream "SOCIALISM" (which is not the "evil" that these people make it out to be.) But, you look at who those opponents are-they are the politicians who are being funded by the insurance companies & the pharmaceutical companies-the ones who benefit from the so-called "free market" health care (or should I say "sick care") we have in this country.  If they can demonize universal health care, maybe the public won't want it.

And yes, it makes me angry, too. VERY angry!!



Cat

Good point...  I'm not saying the current system is the most moral.  I'm just saying that killing someone out of inaction is a lot less likely to land you in jail than out of action.

EDIT: Another thing to consider is that this situation shows how important it is to make sure that you pick an insurer that is worth your trust.  When you choose a healthcare provider, you are literally putting your life in their hands, which is why I think we can agree that HMOs should be held more liable for their actions.

My company offers Blue Cross, like it or lump it.  I could refuse the health plan and pay a fortune buying something else independently, but there's no guarantee they wouldn't dump me after my nervous breakdown (the one I'd have from worrying about how to pay for everything else after my ridiculous insurance premiums!)
:P

public healthcare is no more "socialism" than publicly funded roads or a ublicly funded police force is. somet things just should not be left to the private sector and though it's fine to have private healthcare companies, they shouldnt be the only option. a system that leaves 50 million people to die or face bankruptcy if they get sick is deeply dysfunctional. did you know that healthcare costs have gone up more than 80% since bush got into office? that is, nearly doubled? that's what happens when you have complete deregulation and wholesale profiteering off of what should be essential services.

why the hell do we pay taxes again? the more i think about this the more i wonder what exactly it would take to drive americans to openly revolt.

To add to the cost equation, we are paying taxes that help fund these institutions who have tax exempt status who in turn have been eroding the standard of care and services that have been previously made available due to the tax exempt status..  As with everything else, the you have a class of employees making exorbitantly more, while you have a class of employees making much less in real terms, cutbacks, layoffs, and a downgrading of qualifications(and pay) for day to day workers(i.e. aides instead of nurses) that erode the quality of care.

I was watching something on t.v. yesterday (I think it was on CSpan). Somebody said that every other kind of company makes its money by providing a service/giving the costumer something for his/her money. Insurance companies are the only ones who make their money by denying costumers. That to me is unconscionable. I really don't want some admin pencil pusher to decide what care can be given. They are professional thieves and the people who CAN tell these companies that they are playing with human lives, are not-that is the people in Washington who the insurance companies have in their back pockets. It just makes me SOOOOOOO ANGRY!!!!!




Cat 

public healthcare is no more "socialism" than publicly funded roads or a ublicly funded police force is. somet things just should not be left to the private sector and though it's fine to have private healthcare companies, they shouldnt be the only option. a system that leaves 50 million people to die or face bankruptcy if they get sick is deeply dysfunctional. did you know that healthcare costs have gone up more than 80% since bush got into office? that is, nearly doubled? that's what happens when you have complete deregulation and wholesale profiteering off of what should be essential services.

why the hell do we pay taxes again? the more i think about this the more i wonder what exactly it would take to drive americans to openly revolt.


Good question.
Every nation has its problems but is simply unacceptable what is happening with healthcare in the US. A country who invests so much in research,with all the top notch equipment,great facilities,the amazing doctors who can do miracles...and all for what? to save those who can afford to be safe?
They say sickness affects rich and poor,but if you're poor being sick is your death sentence...because you never even get the chance to be treated,what kind of world is that?
Every system has its faults,but health has to be a priority to every government,because IT IS a matter of life or death.

I know when we're young the last thing on our minds are this issues,we think we're invincible,why the hell should we care about old sick people? And when it hits you or a relative or a friend you realise what's at stake,how scary it is to be sick and not be sure if you'll be able to afford the drug that can heal you. Why should those who are sick,in pain,in need,on top of all the concerns have to worry about money? how is that acceptable?

There are a number of media sources out there that can help you out.  The internet is a great source for finding out things that the mainstream media doesn't report on.  Granted, I realize that, if you are like me and under a company plan, you don't really have a choice as to who your provider is.


..and you think that every single company isn't going to put out as much positive spin as possible?

It's almost impossible to know how good a product is until you buy it, with most things, if it sucks, you return it, or admit defeat and buy a different version of the product. It's difficult to call your health insurance company and complain when you're a f**kin corpse.

..and you think that every single company isn't going to put out as much positive spin as possible?

It's almost impossible to know how good a product is until you buy it, with most things, if it sucks, you return it, or admit defeat and buy a different version of the product. It's difficult to call your health insurance company and complain when you're a f**kin corpse.


lol...  true...  but I'm just saying I'd rather we socialize healthcare at the state level rather than at the federal one.  Also, socialization overall is a bad idea until we secure the border.  With a rising illegal immigrant population that mostly doesn't pay income taxes, costs would go even higher with a socialized system.

lol...  true...  but I'm just saying I'd rather we socialize healthcare at the state level rather than at the federal one.  Also, socialization overall is a bad idea until we secure the border.  With a rising illegal immigrant population that mostly doesn't pay income taxes, costs would go even higher with a socialized system.


You must surely understand that even a socialized healthcare system would only treat undocumented aliens if they were quite literally about to die there in the waiting room.. and with our private medical system that's still the case. If an illegal immigrant walked in to a hospital with a non life-threatening issue they'd be asked for documentation/identification and upon not being able to provide it would be refused treatment. That's how it works in the rest of the world.

A "socialized" healthcare system that treated illegal aliens on demand would STILL be cheaper for the consumer than the mercenary healthcare system we've got today.
::)

You must surely understand that even a socialized healthcare system would only treat undocumented aliens if they were quite literally about to die there in the waiting room.. and with our private medical system that's still the case. If an illegal immigrant walked in to a hospital with a non life-threatening issue they'd be asked for documentation/identification and upon not being able to provide it would be refused treatment. That's how it works in the rest of the world.


In most countries, yes.  In the U.S., not necessarily....

There are some states where politicians actually are considering giving in-state status to illegals for college tuition.  Erskine Bowles (the superintendent of NC's public collegiate system) is one of them.  California is considering the same move.

With the amnesty BS that is rising in America, I wouldn't put it past politicians to threaten the security of a system like socialized healthcare by allowing illegals in, if it means easy votes from newly enfranchised border jumpers.

In most countries, yes.  In the U.S., not necessarily....

There are some states where politicians actually are considering giving in-state status to illegals for college tuition.  Erskine Bowles (the superintendent of NC's public collegiate system) is one of them.  California is considering the same move.

With the amnesty BS that is rising in America, I wouldn't put it past politicians to threaten the security of a system like socialized healthcare by allowing illegals in, if it means easy votes from newly enfranchised border jumpers.


I know!  Treat the illegal alien and then send the bills to the government of his country of origin!
:-\\

In most countries, yes.  In the U.S., not necessarily....

There are some states where politicians actually are considering giving in-state status to illegals for college tuition.  Erskine Bowles (the superintendent of NC's public collegiate system) is one of them.  California is considering the same move.

With the amnesty BS that is rising in America, I wouldn't put it past politicians to threaten the security of a system like socialized healthcare by allowing illegals in, if it means easy votes from newly enfranchised border jumpers.


I think the in state college tuition you're talking about is for the children of illegals, who, if born in the U.S are eligible for said status. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think the in state college tuition you're talking about is for the children of illegals, who, if born in the U.S are eligible for said status. Correct me if I'm wrong.


Nope, this is literally for people who have jumped the border.  This is a good point though...  Because we grant citizenship to those who are born here (regardless of their parents' status), the kids are already given the benefit of in-state status -- as long as they've lived in a given state for the required duration of time.

Personally, I think we need to amend citizenship by birth to what almost every other First World nation has on the books.  At least one parent should have to be a citizen beforehand for birth to grant citizenship.  Otherwise, children of illegals should be deemed just as illegal as their parents.

Nope, this is literally for people who have jumped the border. 

Even a bleeding heart liberal like me goes, "Oh come on!"
::)

Even a bleeding heart liberal like me goes, "Oh come on!"
::)


Immigration issues are the primary reason why I'm not a Democrat, just like how religious issues are the main reason why I'm not a Republican.

Apparently, liberals don't have enough common sense to realize that amnesty is a quick way to kill our economy and national security.  Corporate conservatives don't have the common sense to realize the money they're saving from cheap illegal labor only adds up to higher healthcare costs for everyone when they end up in the emergency room with no way to pay for services granted.

^ Wise!  +700 charisma.

Immigration issues are the primary reason why I'm not a Democrat, just like how religious issues are the main reason why I'm not a Republican.

Apparently, liberals don't have enough common sense to realize that amnesty is a quick way to kill our economy and national security.  Corporate conservatives don't have the common sense to realize the money they're saving from cheap illegal labor only adds up to higher healthcare costs for everyone when they end up in the emergency room with no way to pay for services granted.

What's the point of being a Democrat nowadays?  Might as well just be a Republican, if you know what I mean.
If they nominate Hillary, I'm registering as an independent and writing in Ron Paul, if the old geezer wants to do a write-in campaign.  The DLC-types would argue, "Well, if you vote for a third party you'll only be helping the Republicans!"
Maybe.  But not as much as I would if I voted for Hillary--she'd be the best Republican president since Nixon!
::)

Immigration issues are the primary reason why I'm not a Democrat, just like how religious issues are the main reason why I'm not a Republican.

Apparently, liberals don't have enough common sense to realize that amnesty is a quick way to kill our economy and national security.  Corporate conservatives don't have the common sense to realize the money they're saving from cheap illegal labor only adds up to higher healthcare costs for everyone when they end up in the emergency room with no way to pay for services granted.
i dont get it though. they were saying in this story that started the thread that cigna's profits went up 22% this year, they're making 1.2 billion dollars in free and clear profits. if the illegal mexicans were bankrupting america wouldn't cigna be going under? and wouldnt we be having trouble paying trillions for this bogus war?

and doctors in the US make exorbitant salaries. wouldn't they be going wanting like the rest of us if what you were saying were really true?

lol...  true...  but I'm just saying I'd rather we socialize healthcare at the state level rather than at the federal one.  Also, socialization overall is a bad idea until we secure the border.  With a rising illegal immigrant population that mostly doesn't pay income taxes, costs would go even higher with a socialized system.


  Either a hospital is sufficiently funded to care for the people who enter it, or it is not.  I hope we're not going to disguise funding problems as Homeland Security problems...

What's the point of being a Democrat nowadays?  Might as well just be a Republican, if you know what I mean.
If they nominate Hillary, I'm registering as an independent and writing in Ron Paul, if the old geezer wants to do a write-in campaign.  The DLC-types would argue, "Well, if you vote for a third party you'll only be helping the Republicans!"
Maybe.  But not as much as I would if I voted for Hillary--she'd be the best Republican president since Nixon!
::)



You know, strangely enough, I've ditched Ron Paul lately.  I discovered that what another poster had said about Paul's evolution views was actually true.  He doesn't believe in it.

I'm now throwing my support to Mike Gravel.

i dont get it though. they were saying in this story that started the thread that cigna's profits went up 22% this year, they're making 1.2 billion dollars in free and clear profits. if the illegal mexicans were bankrupting america wouldn't cigna be going under? and wouldnt we be having trouble paying trillions for this bogus war?

and doctors in the US make exorbitant salaries. wouldn't they be going wanting like the rest of us if what you were saying were really true?


Providers are making a killing...  Hospitals are the victims here.

Still, I would agree that we would have a viable socialized system if we ended our aggressive foreign policy and cut the military in half.

You know, strangely enough, I've ditched Ron Paul lately.  I discovered that what another poster had said about Paul's evolution views was actually true.  He doesn't believe in it.

I'm now throwing my support to Mike Gravel.

Yeah, Paul's kind of a fruitcake on some issues.  That I support him at all shows how bad things have gotten.  Of course, Paul wouldn't have a snowball's chance of winning.  I do think it is important to vigorously address the issues he is talking about: National sovereignty, improvement of foreign policy, an end to imperial aggression, resolving the national debt crisis, reconstructing our economy, and so forth.  If I wrote in Paul on the ballot, I would be endorsing his priorities.  Paul is not spending a lot of time railing against abortion or promoting creation science in schools. 

True, but Gravel is like a version of Paul that does believe in evolution, and most of his ideas are more realistic than Paul's.  Besides, I'm more left-leaning than right-leaning.

True, but Gravel is like a version of Paul that does believe in evolution, and most of his ideas are more realistic than Paul's.  Besides, I'm more left-leaning than right-leaning.


Heck, I'd write in Gravel. 

I could not vote for the status quo, it's got to go!
::)

I do think it is important to vigorously address the issues he is talking about: National sovereignty, improvement of foreign policy, an end to imperial aggression, resolving the national debt crisis, reconstructing our economy, and so forth.


I'm on board with those priorities, but I question one in particular. I don't believe the US has a huge problem with national sovereignty (at least not from foreign soils). Au contraire, the US often poses a threat to other nations' national sovereignty. But, I will give you this: the biggest threat to US sovereignty is the US itself, and by that I mean Big Business interests and any government which puts those interests ahead of the interests of Joe and Jane Yank.

The same is true for Canada. Our best friends, the US, are also the biggest threat to our national sovereignty. Not directly, however, but through Big Business and economic/cultural imperialism. The US government becomes implicated in the threat when they support such imperialism politically and through official policy.

The way I see it is a vote for the sovereignty of Joe Yank over his own country is a vote for Johnny Canuck's sovereignty over his, because both aim to put Big Business back under the rule of law and keep them out of legislative affairs.

I'm on board with those priorities, but I question one in particular. I don't believe the US has a huge problem with national sovereignty (at least not from foreign soils). Au contraire, the US often poses a threat to other nations' national sovereignty. But, I will give you this: the biggest threat to US sovereignty is the US itself, and by that I mean Big Business interests and any government which puts those interests ahead of the interests of Joe and Jane Yank.

The same is true for Canada. Our best friends, the US, are also the biggest threat to our national sovereignty. Not directly, however, but through Big Business and economic/cultural imperialism. The US government becomes implicated in the threat when they support such imperialism politically and through official policy.

The way I see it is a vote for the sovereignty of Joe Yank over his own country is a vote for Johnny Canuck's sovereignty over his, because both aim to put Big Business back under the rule of law and keep them out of legislative affairs.

The super-rich are loyal to capital and nothing else; hence, they don't care if China owns America.
::)

The super-rich are loyal to capital and nothing else; hence, they don't care if China owns America.
::)


That is true.