Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In Houston, a very sick 46 year old man is set to have all supportive medical measures ceased against his and his family's wishes, after Methodist Hospital has refused to continue treating him, citing Texas state law.
I'm appalled. Before posters star bashing the state of Texas in general because this man resides here, I'll point out the hospital is probably wanting to remove life support because he doesn't have insurance and has been hospitalized two months already. He got very ill before we sought any medical treatment (most likely because he doesn't have insurance) and by the time he went, his illness was quite advanced so doctors believe the surgery to remove the tumor will kill him. The hospital should not be making these decisions for a grown, coherent man.
It's an unusual reversal of the more typical scenario in which the patient wants to die and the hospital wants to continue to treat, and now the battle is being fought in the courts. I don't understand why he can't be transferred to another hospital. Houston has some of the best medical facilities in the world. It's pathetic that Americans still have no access to medical care. If he had seen the doctor sooner, this may not have even happened. But he didn't have that option either Hopefully the Texas Courts will rule in his favor.
Unfortunately this has become the norm. Health Care used to be about helping people, but now it is big business. Just like pharmaceuticals. Many go without because they can't afford the care. Sad but true. This is the way of the future and I don't see it changing.
Unfortunately this has become the norm. Health Care used to be about helping people, but now it is big business. Just like pharmaceuticals. Many go without because they can't afford the care. Sad but true. This is the way of the future and I don't see it changing.
I agree. We need a non profit healthcare system but I don't hold out much hope for it anymore.
This is nothing new in Texas. Don't you remember the case of Sun Hudson?
Quote:
Sun's death marks the first time a hospital has been allowed by a U.S. judge to discontinue an infant's life-sustaining care against a parent's wishes, according to bioethical experts. A similar case involving a 68-year-old man in a chronic vegetative state at another Houston hospital is before a court now.
You probably don't. You see, that case was in the news in 2005, and the result was due to a Texas law called the Texas Advanced Directive Act, which was passed and signed into law in 1999. Now, you got to ask yourself two questions:
1) Who was the Governor of Texas who signed that bill into law in 1999? and
2) Who was President of the United States in 2005?
[hint - both answers are the same!]
So while the media - especially Fox and their cohorts - were all obsessed with the case of Terri Schiavo (that was in 2005 also, and that case I'm sure you remember), none of them wanted to touch the Sun Hudson case, for obvious political reasons.
Of course, in the case of Schiavo, her legal care-giver agreed to the removal of life support. In the case of Hudson, it was removed against the will of his legal care-giver. Remember Jeb Bush's grandstanding over Terri Schiavo? Remember the same by Congress? I do. Remember any public acknowledgement about Sun Hudson at all? I don't. Do you think Sarah Palin ever brought up the Hudson case when she was ridiculously bleating about 'death panels'? Of course not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead
Obama"no" care is gross. If you haven't noticed it's not working. Nobody can afford it. Poor guy and his family.
Uh huh... a record number of sign-ups for the ACA again this year... the uninsured rate is lower than it's every been due to the ACA... but 'no one can afford it'...
In Houston, a very sick 46 year old man is set to have all supportive medical measures ceased against his and his family's wishes, after Methodist Hospital has refused to continue treating him, citing Texas state law.
I'm appalled. Before posters star bashing the state of Texas in general because this man resides here, I'll point out the hospital is probably wanting to remove life support because he doesn't have insurance and has been hospitalized two months already. He got very ill before we sought any medical treatment (most likely because he doesn't have insurance) and by the time he went, his illness was quite advanced so doctors believe the surgery to remove the tumor will kill him. The hospital should not be making these decisions for a grown, coherent man.
It's an unusual reversal of the more typical scenario in which the patient wants to die and the hospital wants to continue to treat, and now the battle is being fought in the courts. I don't understand why he can't be transferred to another hospital. Houston has some of the best medical facilities in the world. It's pathetic that Americans still have no access to medical care. If he had seen the doctor sooner, this may not have even happened. But he didn't have that option either Hopefully the Texas Courts will rule in his favor.
It's been like that in Texas for some time. What they will do is transfer him to a facility that will keep him comfortable, like a nursing home or rehab place.
Now, in New York, there are patients that have been in hospitals for years.
I read up on this when I had it in my mind that I wanted to live forever, never pull the plug! I realized I would have to move out of Texas. But now I've come to my senses and figure I won't fight it.
Obama"no" care is gross. If you haven't noticed it's not working. Nobody can afford it. Poor guy and his family.
First of all, "Obama Care" isn't insurance, it isn't healthcare. It refers to the ACA, which is law requiring coverage. Blame the insurance companies. They set the prices. And if Congress hadn't blocked the parts that would make it work best, the ACA would have been closer to a non-profit health-care system. Now, the requirement ensures that insurance companies can gouge at will.
Secondly, this is the result of Texas law. It has NOTHING to do with the ACA.
You probably don't. You see, that case was in the news in 2005, and the result was due to a Texas law called the Texas Advanced Directive Act, which was passed and signed into law in 1999. Now, you got to ask yourself two questions:
1) Who was the Governor of Texas who signed that bill into law in 1999? and
2) Who was President of the United States in 2005?
[hint - both answers are the same!]
So while the media - especially Fox and their cohorts - were all obsessed with the case of Terri Schiavo (that was in 2005 also, and that case I'm sure you remember), none of them wanted to touch the Sun Hudson case, for obvious political reasons.
Of course, in the case of Schiavo, her legal care-giver agreed to the removal of life support. In the case of Hudson, it was removed against the will of his legal care-giver. Remember Jeb Bush's grandstanding over Terri Schiavo? Remember the same by Congress? I do. Remember any public acknowledgement about Sun Hudson at all? I don't. Do you think Sarah Palin ever brought up the Hudson case when she was ridiculously bleating about 'death panels'? Of course not.
I know of a few cases. In this case of the baby, it's rather different since the child had a fatal disease and was going to die quickly no matter what the doctors did. This man is not necessarily going to die. He might; he might not. He might actually recover with medical assistance and go on to live a long life. But if the plug is pulled he'll die for sure. And here we go again with the partisanship nonsense. Since you're going to go there, let me remind you that Obamacare is called Obamacare for a reason
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
Uh huh... a record number of sign-ups for the ACA again this year... the uninsured rate is lower than it's every been due to the ACA... but 'no one can afford it'...
That's strange. Because I found several websites that say exactly the opposite; that the Obamacare enrollment projections have decreased significantly becase fewer people have signed up. And fewer people have signed up because the insurance is too freaking expensive. And let's not forget the glut of threads started by CD posters who can't afford private health insurance or Obamacare because Obamacare doesn't work well.
On an anecdotal note, my coworkers have begged my boss to provide health insurance for them because they can't afford to take the penalty and they can't afford the far more expensive Obamacare insurance. Fortunately, they are getting private employee PPO coverage with BCBS starting January 1st
It sounds like he has some kind of pancreatic cancer probably. Unfortunately the survival rates are extremely poor on that, it make little difference that he " wants to live."
First of all, "Obama Care" isn't insurance, it isn't healthcare. It refers to the ACA, which is law requiring coverage. Blame the insurance companies. They set the prices. And if Congress hadn't blocked the parts that would make it work best, the ACA would have been closer to a non-profit health-care system. Now, the requirement ensures that insurance companies can gouge at will.
Secondly, this is the result of Texas law. It has NOTHING to do with the ACA.
There is a big difference in providing a service for no profit and giving it away for free. Someone has to pay the bill.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hopefully the Texas Courts will rule in his favor.
