![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsDuring the heated debate last summer over the proposed health care legislation, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama kept bringing to the media the phrase 'death panels', groups of people that would decide whether or not to "pull the plug on Grandma". While Palin was misguided in her analysis (as she was trying to say that end-of-life care or the living will system was the 'death panel' when it actually wasn't), she may not have been entirely off-base.
Stories have been featured recently through several media outlets of patients in Arizona and Indiana who have been denied life-saving surgeries in the past several weeks and months due to cuts in state Medicaid budgets. In Indiana, a six-month old infant named Seth Petreikis has complete DiGeorge syndrome. A surgery that was deemed "experimental" by Medicaid was denied to him, but the company that manages Indiana's Medicaid program has offered to pay for the surgery themselves. [Source]
In Arizona, 98 people who were already approved for transplants were later told they couldn't receive the surgeries because of recent cuts to Arizona's Medicaid budget. One man was set to receive a new liver, which was donated to him by a friend who'd recently passed away. Because he couldn't pay for the $200,000 surgery, the liver went to another patient. [Source] The reason for this? On October 1, 2010, the state of Arizona removed transplants from a list of medical services that can be funded through the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS). Keith Olbermann is asking viewers of his show Countdown to donate in the hopes of funding the transplants. Meanwhile, Democrats in Arizona are now using the 'death panel' analogy as an attack against Gov. Jan Brewer and Arizona Republicans, who agreed to Medicaid cuts to balance their budget, despite protests from Democrats. [Source]
The 'death panels' Palin referred to have little to do with federal government action and more to do with state government blunders. There should be some legislation on the table to mandate organ transplant surgeries be paid for through all health care providers, public and private.Transplant boards are still necessary to sort through the amount of transplant candidates but at least someone who's promised a chance at renewed life wouldn't have to worry about that promise being taken away.
Stories have been featured recently through several media outlets of patients in Arizona and Indiana who have been denied life-saving surgeries in the past several weeks and months due to cuts in state Medicaid budgets. In Indiana, a six-month old infant named Seth Petreikis has complete DiGeorge syndrome. A surgery that was deemed "experimental" by Medicaid was denied to him, but the company that manages Indiana's Medicaid program has offered to pay for the surgery themselves. [Source]
In Arizona, 98 people who were already approved for transplants were later told they couldn't receive the surgeries because of recent cuts to Arizona's Medicaid budget. One man was set to receive a new liver, which was donated to him by a friend who'd recently passed away. Because he couldn't pay for the $200,000 surgery, the liver went to another patient. [Source] The reason for this? On October 1, 2010, the state of Arizona removed transplants from a list of medical services that can be funded through the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS). Keith Olbermann is asking viewers of his show Countdown to donate in the hopes of funding the transplants. Meanwhile, Democrats in Arizona are now using the 'death panel' analogy as an attack against Gov. Jan Brewer and Arizona Republicans, who agreed to Medicaid cuts to balance their budget, despite protests from Democrats. [Source]
The 'death panels' Palin referred to have little to do with federal government action and more to do with state government blunders. There should be some legislation on the table to mandate organ transplant surgeries be paid for through all health care providers, public and private.Transplant boards are still necessary to sort through the amount of transplant candidates but at least someone who's promised a chance at renewed life wouldn't have to worry about that promise being taken away.
Re: No such things as a free organ transplant
Date: 13/12/10 15:40 (UTC)Re: No such things as a free organ transplant
Date: 13/12/10 17:39 (UTC)Re: No such things as a free organ transplant
Date: 13/12/10 17:43 (UTC)Re: No such things as a free organ transplant
Date: 13/12/10 18:11 (UTC)Odds are okay when you're talking about a horse race, playing the odds with human lives is not.
Re: No such things as a free organ transplant
Date: 13/12/10 19:43 (UTC)10% is entirely acceptable. It's not a significant cost, and it's not a reason to go into hysterics.
Odds are okay when you're talking about a horse race, playing the odds with human lives is not.
Except we're not playing with human lives, just human health insurance.
Re: No such things as a free organ transplant
Date: 13/12/10 21:16 (UTC)Your lack of interest in individual people is well documented, I don't imagine we're going to agree on this point. 10% is far, far to high for a country that spends more GDP than anyone else in the world. Additionally, we're not talking about hysterics, we're talking about a true human cost. If you found yourself in that 10% I think you'd find yourself incredibly unhappy with the current system.
Except we're not playing with human lives, just human health insurance.
In a country where the middle class is shrinking, and the average person's wages have declined constantly over the last 20 years, the line between health insurance and (when talking about a person's access to live-saving care) a person's life is very thin indeed. There are arguments to be made about making health care affordable again, but that's for a different thread and also not practical in the current environment.
Re: No such things as a free organ transplant
Date: 13/12/10 21:37 (UTC)How do those two things possibly relate?
Additionally, we're not talking about hysterics, we're talking about a true human cost. If you found yourself in that 10% I think you'd find yourself incredibly unhappy with the current system.
Oh, so you think it's not a matter of principle. That myself or my family has never had to fight for what they've paid for from the health industry. That somehow I don't share your opinion because I haven't been there.
Awfully presumptuous there, buddy.
In a country where the middle class is shrinking
...only because they're getting richer, as I linked elsewhere in this thread...
and the average person's wages have declined constantly over the last 20 years
...but only if you ignore the lowering costs of other items along the way...
There are arguments to be made about making health care affordable again, but that's for a different thread and also not practical in the current environment.
Well, true - we have a Democratic President who doesn't get it, so we kinda have something in the way.
Re: No such things as a free organ transplant
Date: 14/12/10 01:59 (UTC)If I had a 10% chance of winning the lottery, that is GOOD. If I have a 10% chance of losing my insurance, that is BAD.
Re: No such things as a free organ transplant
Date: 14/12/10 02:00 (UTC)Maybe that will work out in our collective favor in the long run, but in the short term?
Re: No such things as a free organ transplant
Date: 14/12/10 02:11 (UTC)where on earth are you getting these silly ideas?
Re: No such things as a free organ transplant
Date: 14/12/10 02:19 (UTC)They'll just stop offering it completely. The government can't force them to remain in business.
where on earth are you getting these silly ideas?
The real world.