![[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: 14/12/10 00:47 (UTC)Knowing my family history, I know that I will probably have all sorts of issues crop up. But not until I'm in my thirties.
When I graduated college, I didn't seek any medical coverage. When I was offered free insurance two years later at a firm, I took it. But when I switched jobs, I didn't bother with the ninety days of cobra before my new job kicked in.
Instead I took the insurance option to get 90 days of my monthly meds (the fancy stuff that retails at 60/mo and I paid ten/mo), and dropped coverage.
When I was included in a string of layoffs last summer, I made the same calculated decision. I went to my doctor for a physical, got a three month supply of meds and dropped coverage. Even with the heavily subsidized COBRA plan, it was simply much cheaper.
That's including the fact that I had to pay out of pocket for two months of meds and a minor ear infection. All told, 250 dollars worth of medical bills compared to 600 dollars worth of health insurance.
Sure. It was a risk. But it was a very calculated risk. One that is devastating to the insurance market and one that was completely rational for me.
That's why knowing your personal risk is a bad thing for insurance markets.
And sure, if I had been wrong, I might have been screwed. That was the story about my mom. But that cost isn't covered by just the individual patient. My mom racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical debt because of this one screw up.
It added months to her healing process, putting her out of work and unproductive. And while everyone was lucky that she had family support that covered the bills, many people who lose that gamble don't. Who pays then?
Everyone. Because even if the government didn't interfere in the market, hospitals would be likely to take on a lot of bad debt. Because when a guy comes into surgery about to die, there's often not time to determine if they're financially eligible to deal with this debt.
Re: No such things as a free organ transplant
Date: 14/12/10 01:18 (UTC)I see where you're going with this now, but it's not devastating to the market, because the market assumes this sort of dropoff. The high number of high-wage unemployed people speak to this - you'd think that if the low-risk folks were that important to the business structure, they'd offer plans to get them on board, after all.
Re: No such things as a free organ transplant
Date: 14/12/10 01:21 (UTC)Typical markets assume this sort of drop-off.
Insurance markets require the low risk to subsidize the high risk to work. If the low risk people *know* they're low risk, they won't.
How do you create a business plan that convinces low-risk folks to subsidize high risk folks? There can be a bit fear-mongering. But considering so many low-risk folk voluntarily decide to go without health insurance, I'd say it's a poor market strategy.
Re: No such things as a free organ transplant
Date: 14/12/10 01:23 (UTC)Yet they do not pursue these people when they're ripe for the picking. Yet they essentially create an incentive for the low risk to drop off the rolls until they reach a higher risk year. You understand why this isn't exactly a logical position to be claiming, right?
How do you create a business plan that convinces low-risk folks to subsidize high risk folks? There can be a bit fear-mongering. But considering so many low-risk folk voluntarily decide to go without health insurance, I'd say it's a poor market strategy.
Or the health of the business doesn't actually rely on that.
Re: No such things as a free organ transplant
Date: 14/12/10 05:52 (UTC)A free market should magically convince people to pay 100 dollars for 70 dollars worth of health care.
That's a logical assertion.