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.
How about the stories we've heard about babies or grown ups who wouldn't live beyond a year or two and lo and behold they survive and live fruitful productive lives??
She is never, ever going to have a fruitful productive life.
The million dollar price tag could indeed represent what most would consider palliative care, including antibiotics for infections. It reflects the expense of medical care, and expensive does not necessarily equate with heroic.
It would be interesting to see what exactly had led up to the million dollar price tag.
Did the doctors order a lot of very expensive genetic tests? Were they ordering all kinds of chromosome analyses to pin-point a diagnosis which is really just academic, it doesn't really change a thing as far as the little baby is concerned. You can have a $6000 lab test to help the doctors have the right label for your condition but that $6000 test doesn't change your prognosis or treatment in any way. Sometimes they just like to know for the sake of knowing. Meanwhile maybe all she needed to live was an IV here and there, a cheap feeding tube, and some antibiotics to fight an infection.
Since all it seems that is keeping her alive is actually nothing extraordinary, I suspect that a lot of the expense was not actually anything to keep her alive but a lot of tests done on her which happen to be extremely expensive.
She may have had a stay in an ICN where just one day costs thousands of dollars, even if it is just an IV and some oxygen and a couple of monitors. At least some of those dollars went to hospital nurses, physicians, hospital administrators in the form of wages.
I know this guy had an infection on his finger - he hesitated even going in to have it checked but he was shocked at how much it ended up costing.
It would be interesting to see what exactly had led up to the million dollar price tag.
I agree. In fact, we do not even know if it is a million dollars. That is the Dad's estimate. Tenn Care is paying, and if it is like Georgia Medicaid, the family does not even get bills or anything like the explanations of benefits that commercial insurers send out.
When my son was treated for his leukemia in the early 1990s, I estimated his cost at about $250,000. That included multiple hospitalizations, chemo, and radiation in addition to outpatient care. Most of that was in the first year. We had excellent insurance and could afford the out of pocket costs. I would expect the costs would be double that or more now. Taking care of a seriously ill child is expensive.
What people here are not understanding is that Pearl is not getting anything heroic done. There are some who are saying that the taxpayer should not bear the financial burden only because the parents chose not to abort. Ethically the parents have the right to make that decision.
The child has the same right to care as any other handicapped child. The fact that abortion was an option does not trump that.
I would hope that the family and the doctors have agreed that if an event happens that would require life support that that will not be an option offered. That would tip the ethical scales toward an imbalance between benefit toward harm for Pearl and would be unjust for society.
But this child is not on "extraordinary" support. Expensive does not mean "extraordinary".
You really ought to know better than this by now suzy-q ....do you think for one minute that I'm not going to rip this Orwellian double talk apart?
Look, either the care is extraordinary, or the costs are. Either way, extraordinary is the word that best defines it. The damned parents could be charged a Million Dollars for basic maintenance care (as it has been described)... or they could be charged:
$133,405 ...... for a Heart valve procedure
$121,836 ...... and a Kidney transplant
$93,184 .........and a Gastrectomy
$81,661 ........ and a Small bowel resection
$62,292 ........ and respiratory intubation and mechanical ventilation
For a grand total of ...... $496,878 ... leaving over one half of that Million Dollars still unspent.
Now the above list would surely constitute "extraordinary", while being less than half of the rather ordinary and routine "maintenance" care alleged to have occurred with regard to this child.
I agree. In fact, we do not even know if it is a million dollars. That is the Dad's estimate. Tenn Care is paying, and if it is like Georgia Medicaid, the family does not even get bills or anything like the explanations of benefits that commercial insurers send out.
Yes ... you are right, we don't know ... it could be $1,500,000, and not just 1 Million
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
When my son was treated for his leukemia in the early 1990s, I estimated his cost at about $250,000. That included multiple hospitalizations, chemo, and radiation in addition to outpatient care. Most of that was in the first year. We had excellent insurance and could afford the out of pocket costs. I would expect the costs would be double that or more now. Taking care of a seriously ill child is expensive.
And why should it be double now? Have incomes doubled (excepting of course those in the medical field), or is it just a case of out-of-control, financial abuse? What extraneous conditions justify this massive doubling of costs in such a sort time frame ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
What people here are not understanding is that Pearl is not getting anything heroic done. There are some who are saying that the taxpayer should not bear the financial burden only because the parents chose not to abort. Ethically the parents have the right to make that decision.
No, that's not what people are saying AT ALL ... what they are saying is a two fold statement ... 1) the tax payer should not have to absorb the costs of other peoples healthcare costs, or any other costs for that matter, regardless of what those cost are, or how they came to be ... and .... 2) The reason why such obscene amounts of money is being charged for allegedly routine, non-extraordinary health care (by your definition) is because it's much easier to spend other people's money, than to spend your own money. Give me your credit card to go shopping, and I'm likely not to care at all what the costs of things are ... I probably wouldn't even look at the price tags!
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
The child has the same right to care as any other handicapped child. The fact that abortion was an option does not trump that.
I would hope that the family and the doctors have agreed that if an event happens that would require life support that that will not be an option offered. That would tip the ethical scales toward an imbalance between benefit toward harm for Pearl and would be unjust for society.
If only you compassionate liberals would agree to extend this high minded graciousness and moral superiority to the 1 Million unborn babies you so enthusiastically support flushing down the planned parenthood toilets each year .. we might buy this compassion routine you're selling ... but you won't, so therefore, we don't.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 11-02-2012 at 03:05 AM..
No, that's not what people are saying AT ALL ... what they are saying is a two fold statement ... 1) the tax payer should not have to absorb the costs of other peoples healthcare costs, or any other costs for that matter, regardless of what those cost are, or how they came to be ... and .... 2) The reason why such obscene amounts of money is being charged for allegedly routine, non-extraordinary health care (by your definition) is because it's much easier to spend other people's money, than to spend your own money. Give me your credit card to go shopping, and I'm likely not to care at all what the costs of things are ... I probably wouldn't even look at the price tags!.
#1. That's NOT what I'm saying at all. I'm all for gov't provided medical assistance for needy children/babies/adults with treatable/curable conditions.
#1. That's NOT what I'm saying at all. I'm all for gov't provided medical assistance for needy children/babies/adults with treatable/curable conditions.
I wouldn't say I'm all for it, but essentially this is correct. The key here is treatable/curable.
The "single payer" system is the correct one ... and that single payer should be the person receiving medical treatment!
You see, this really isn't difficult, if only people would use their heads and think for 5 seconds. The astronomical costs of health care these days was created and made possible by the establishment of health care insurance. It's in fact a ponzi scheme, or a pyramid scheme in which a constant flow of new payers must be brought in to keep the funds pool filled ... and the larger that pool of funds, the higher those costs will escalate to tap that revenue source, and then the resulting increase in premiums to keep that cycle going. Without that pool of funds, few individuals would be able to afford even basic care as it is currently priced, and therefore would require costs to come way down, and maintain affordable levels for which the average person could reasonably manage.
Let me explain it this way .. Apple Corp is in the business of making money .. not providing a public service. They price their iPhone at $599 because that is what they have determined to be and acceptable and affordable price point for maximizing sales and profits. Believe me, if Apple thought they could charge $1599 for that phone without losing massive amounts of sales for being priced too high ... they would .. guaranteed. But let government mandate that everyone must have an iPhone ... even those that cannot afford them (@ 599), and an insurance scheme was established in which everyone paid a monthly rate and was issued an iPhone ... it wouldn't take long for that phone to be priced at $1599 ... then $1899 ... then $2499.
With medical care, there is an enormous chain of profit centers from doctors and nurses, to hospitals, medical supplies and medical equipment, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, malpractice insurance, Universities ... etc. And the larger that pool of money made available ... the greater the costs for everything from cotton swabs to medical school tuition, and everything in between.
From a pure $ perspective, lets say there are 100 Million families with health care insurance, and the average premium is $600 per month. That creates a 60 Billion dollar pool of funds each month, 720 Billion each year. You can increase that pool of 720 Billion to 830 Billion by simply raising those $600 premiums by 15% .... resulting in an annual increase of 108 Billion dollars. Add another 15%, and the pool expands to over a Trillion. And so on. And all you need to do is raise prices of medical care, and the system automatically adjusts up ... so the average family will ultimately absorb the costs .. and with Obama Care and the forced inclusion of 30 Million more on the books of the insured, those rates will adjust up and up and up because then, no one will be able to simply drop out because of too high costs .. the law requires that they absorb the increases. Under this scenario, rates will increase to obscene levels in no time.
Make a law requiring everyone to have a 60" flat screen TV and Direct TV service ... and that $1200 set and that $79 per month service fee would jump three+ fold in no time at all. That TV would cost $3600, and the cable bill would be $350.
This is just common sense , people. Demanding Obama Care is like saying "please beat me and abuse me", because that's exactly what is going to happen.
Ask yourself a simple question ... would the Ford Motor Co., Ford Dealerships nationwide, Ford Salesmen, Ford mechanics be in favor of a law that required every American to own a Ford? And do you think the price of Fords would go down or up? Keep in mind that one of the reasons why Fords cost what they do today is because you the car buyer have other options other than Fords, to include not buying a freaking car of any type.
I meant to reply to this post when it first went up.
Your explanation of the rising cost of medical care uses for-profit businesses as an example - a business can charge whatever the market will tolerate. That's fine for a business that sells a product that the consumer can live without. However, medical care is essential and it should not be a for-profit industry.
There should be a single payer and it should be run by the gov't. The profit motive needs to be removed from the delivery of medical care. That and that alone will bring down health care costs.
PS: Thanks for the civilized, well thought out reply.
I wouldn't say I'm all for it, but essentially this is correct. The key here is treatable/curable.
Pearl's condition is not curable, but it is treatable. What treatment do you feel she is getting that she should not get?
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.
