Healthcare Public Option?

[Accountable]

We have this in the US right now... If I'm an alcoholic, my insurance company will NOT pay for me to get a liver transplant. If I was over 58, my insurance company would refuse to pay for a heart stint. And the list goes on and on and on.... what makes you think we can get these services here in the states with private insurance? That's one of the major problems we have right now. People getting denied service/payment for needed services. What's the difference between the bureaucrat sitting behind the desk at your insurance company and one sitting behind a government desk?

Yet another straw man argument....

But if you're an illegal alien alcoholic, homeless alcoholic, or alcoholic rich enough to pay for a liver transplant, you've got your liver transplant, heart stint, or whatever you need.

That's the major problem you have right now. You can't see past being dependent on either insurance or the gov't, for one, and you don't see that we have great healthcare, just a dependence addiction we can't kick.

 

[Accountable]

Good on ya, Codrus. Live within your means, take care of yourself, and build a big emergency fund. You'll be fine. Even if you're not, you can always avoid responsibility with that fine old American tradition of filing for bankruptcy.


BTW (to anyone), which part of the US Constitution gives Congress responsibility for the nation's healthcare?

In the current system there is no average family who has enough money set aside to deal with a major health issue without an insurance plan. Accountable, you have health insurance?

Yes. Now, care to answer my question? It wasn't rhetorical.

 

[Meirionnydd]

This is what we're in for.
LINK

"He was admitted to a London hospital in May but died after doctors refused to give him a liver transplant amid fears he would not stay sober for six months after the operation. "

... "The NHS Blood and Transplant service said Mr Reinbach's case highlighted the dilemma faced by doctors because of a shortage of donated organs.

'They have to make tough decisions about who is going to get the benefit and who is going to take best care of this precious gift,' the NHS said.

~~~~

I wonder if anyone else matched the liver. Livers regenerate, so more than one person can benefit from a donor.

Yeah... About that...

Doctors there said he could not jump the queue and had not served the mandatory six-month period of being sober before having the operation.

22yo dies after being denied liver transplant - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

If this man lived in the United States, even if he had health cover, it's unlikely that he would have been able to get a liver transplant. The health insurance company would just make some bullshit excuse up so they wouldn't have to cover the cost.

 

[Accountable]

National health care is supposed to care for everybody. Where's the compassion??

Sure, in the States, an insurance company would have made a monetary decision and let the poor slob die, wasting 40-50 years of potential. A 22-year-old alcoholic is unlikely to have insurance, which would leave the call to compassionate doctors. We don't have a single national criteria list dictated by law (read politicians). I have a sneaky suspicion that if the guy in the next bed died as an organ donor and had a matching liver, NHS would have let that liver go in the garbage bin before giving it to this young man.

In his case, national health care only meant cold-hearted murder.

 

[Meirionnydd]

National health care is supposed to care for everybody. Where's the compassion??

Sure, in the States, an insurance company would have made a monetary decision and let the poor slob die, wasting 40-50 years of potential. A 22-year-old alcoholic is unlikely to have insurance, which would leave the call to compassionate doctors. We don't have a single national criteria list dictated by law (read politicians). I have a sneaky suspicion that if the guy in the next bed died as an organ donor and had a matching liver, NHS would have let that liver go in the garbage bin before giving it to this young man.

In his case, national health care only meant cold-hearted murder.

I'm pretty sure they would give it to someone who wasn't a 22 year-old alcoholic? I'm not being uncompassionate or anything, but livers are hard to come by, there were others on the waiting list who were just as in need.

I don't think the fact that he wasn't able to find a liver is a failing of the national health care system, generally in most western countries, organ donation rates are quite low (However in the United States, organ donations are quite modest), it's quite hard to make a case for this man, compared to others that needed a liver who are probably more deserving - i.e. Not being a 22 year-old alcoholic.

Especially that it was doubted that he would ultimately survive the procedure. I know that this all sounds cold-hearted, but it's true.

I'm sure if there was a liver shortage in the US (Wouldn't surprise me if there is) it's unlikely that the doctors would have operated on him anyway. But that's just speculation on my part.

This was in the article I posted earlier, may provide more background information.

Professor Ian Gilmore is a liver specialist at the Royal Liverpool Hospital. He told the BBC Gary Reinbach was unlucky to be in his position at such a young age, and that the odds were stacked against him.

"The saddest aspect of this case is it's because of the severe shortage of donors livers that these decisions are faced every day," he said.

"And we know, for example, that those who do get onto a liver transplant list will wait on average more than three months before finding an organ.

"One in six of those who are accepted with a wide range of liver disease, will die. One in six dying before they get their transplant."

Professor Gilmore says it was a hard decision to say no to Gary Reinbach and his family.

"It's never one single person's decision, it's a multi-disciplinary team that review it, it's made on practical grounds," he said.

"We know that these patients, who present very acutely like this with no past history, actually don't survive transplantation as well as some other groups."

'Tough calls'

Jeremy Chapman is a Professor at Sydney University and currently the President of the International Transplantation Society.

In general terms, he says scarce resources have forced tough calls to be made on the suitability of the patient for an organ transplant.

"Two things that matter in this situation, the first is waiting list acceptance - how does a patient get onto a transplant waiting list?," he said

"And secondly, once they're on a waiting list, how does the allocation of what is still a very rare and precious resource get made?"

And does the behaviour of the patient become a factor for example in the case where it is liver damage caused by alcohol, is it absolutely imperative that they give up alcohol?

"The criteria for acceptance onto the transplant waiting list are to do with, first of all, whether a transplant is actually needed, and secondly what the outcome would be after transplantation," Professor Chapman said.

"It is pointless trying to put somebody onto a transplant waiting list when you know that their success after transplantation would be very poor."

 

[Minor Axis]

Yes. Now, care to answer my question? It wasn't rhetorical.

If you are talking about healthcare being spelled out in the Constitution, I don't think it is but what does that have to do with deciding who deserves health care? I never said it was a right, it's just the right thing to do.

This all boils down to the conservative view that if I work my ass off and be successful, I'll be taken care of, a standard of self sufficiency. That in itself is not a bad way to approach life. The problem is in our society you need everyone doing their part (at all levels) and not everyone is going to reach a level where their company is going to give them affordable health insurance. So you have a small group of insanely wealthy people at the top with all of their needs taken care of, a large group in the middle with health coverage, and you have a substantial group of people who are working full time jobs but either they are not offered insurance, or insurance they can't afford. And because we have a for-profit system, our costs have been skyrocketing for the last 30 years and they will continue to go up and I believe our health system will emplode as health costs become so much that even the big corporations will not be able to afford giving it to their employees. This is the perfect example of where government can make a difference for society.

The conservative view of the people at the bottom is screw them, they did not work hard enough, and besides the real issue is I don't want to forced to give my hard earned money to anyone else. But a liberal view is that we are all part of society, that all of those minimum wage or modestly above minimum wage workers are making your company run and making you as the owner comfortable, so why not return the favor? Isn't it the moral thing to do? And realistically, even if everyone worked their ass off, there would not be room at the top for all of them, and who would be left to do the menial work? Anyone with no or limited insurance is just one sickness away from bankruptcy. Conservatives say "not my problem" but it is your moral problem.

 

[Alien Allen]

Is 15% a large percentage? Not normally. but it is when health care is the topic for some reason. Instead of throwing a blanket over everything with a fucked up govt run system hell bent on eliminating private insurance why not come up with something different that can take care of the 15%. By the way in the 15% are many younger people who just do not want to spend the money on insurance. They have it but do not want to spend it on insurance.

 

[Minor Axis]

Is 15% a large percentage? Not normally. but it is when health care is the topic for some reason. Instead of throwing a blanket over everything with a fucked up govt run system hell bent on eliminating private insurance why not come up with something different that can take care of the 15%. By the way in the 15% are many younger people who just do not want to spend the money on insurance. They have it but do not want to spend it on insurance.

At this point it seems like the easiest thing for you to do is become head of anarchists league and start the revolution! That will fix everything. You guys certainly have enough guns to give it a shot.

We Won't be Fooled Again!- The Who.
Revolution- The Beatles.

 

[Accountable]

If you are talking about healthcare being spelled out in the Constitution, I don't think it is but what does that have to do with deciding who deserves health care? I never said it was a right, it's just the right thing to do.

Maybe this will help:


Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people


Fine, it's the right thing to do, but it's NOT the right of the federal gov't. Call your state legislature and get them working on it, or start a movement to amend the constitution.

 

[Accountable]

I'm pretty sure they would give it to someone who wasn't a 22 year-old alcoholic? I'm not being uncompassionate or anything, but livers are hard to come by, there were others on the waiting list who were just as in need.

I'm saying that if a matching liver was found for him that didn't match anyone else, he still wouldn't get the transplant in the UK; he probably would in the US, depending on which hospital he was in.

I don't think the fact that he wasn't able to find a liver is a failing of the national health care system, *snip*

That's a fact? Really? They searched for a liver for him even though he was ineligible??

 

[Minor Axis]

Maybe this will help:


Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people


Fine, it's the right thing to do, but it's NOT the right of the federal gov't. Call your state legislature and get them working on it, or start a movement to amend the constitution.

The Constitution does not have to be amended to institute universal health care.

 

[Accountable]

The Constitution does not have to be amended to institute universal health care.

WHERE'S YOUR PROOF??? I've asked time and again. What places citizens' healthcare under the jurisdiction of the United States federal government?

 

[Alien Allen]

The Constitution does not have to be amended to institute universal health care.

Good point

The Constitution has been shredded.

When the SC used the Commerce Clause to allow the power grab by the feds

 

[Minor Axis]

WHERE'S YOUR PROOF??? I've asked time and again. What places citizens' healthcare under the jurisdiction of the United States federal government?

I'm happy with the direction. As you are unhappy why don't you disprove it? BTW, I have serious doubt that UHC will be enacted in the near future. Too many greedy bastards stand in the way. That should make you happy.

 

[Accountable]

Nice duck & run.

 

[Accountable]

Man, I'm proud to be a transplanted Texan!

"It really is a state issue, and if there was ever an argument for the 10th Amendment and for letting the states find a solution to their problems, this may be at the top of the class," Perry said. "A government-run healthcare system is financially unstable. It’s not the solution."

Perry raises possibility of states' rights showdown with White House over healthcare | Top Stories | Star-Telegram.com

 

[Minor Axis]

Pride is a sin.

Texas Could Secede. Perry is an impressive governor. :smiley24:

 

[Accountable]

I think so too! :usa:

 

[Alien Allen]

Like I said .......... The SC neutered the states with their opinion on the Commerce Clause..

It was such a wide reaching opinion that it damn near encompassed everything.

If Commerce Clause is incorrect I apologize. I could be wrong on the actual case but it had to do with commerce.

 

[Meirionnydd]

I'm saying that if a matching liver was found for him that didn't match anyone else, he still wouldn't get the transplant in the UK; he probably would in the US, depending on which hospital he was in.

Yeah, for some reason I don't see that happening.

That's a fact? Really? They searched for a liver for him even though he was ineligible??

Yes, it's a fact. Healthcare systems have waiting lists, you simply can't jump the queue. If there is an organ shortage, you can't simply give a liver transplant to someone who isn't likely to survive the operation, as opposed to someone who has been on a waiting list for a longer amount of time, and is likely to survive.

Doctors have to make very hard decisions, just because the US doesn't have a single-payer system doesn't mean it's immune from that fact.