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.
No,...Mr. Obama was talking about giving a quite elderly woman a pill instead of a pacemaker. I fail to see much difference.
In both cases the patients could receive treatments that woiuld make their lives more comfortable,..but apparently the elderly lady was "more expendible" than what you consider that of a youthful patient. The price of a pacemaker v. price of MIBG. You do the math.
Playing on the emotions won't work any more with a government-run system than with a private carrier.
Funny, that's what Obama said, though he also noted that emotions will enter into doctors' decisions no matter who is paying the doctor.
You're wrong that "Mr. Obama was talking about giving a quite elderly woman a pill instead of a pacemaker."
He was talking to a woman whose mother was 105 and who had received her pacemaker five years earlier based on a specialist's observation that she was otherwise relatively well and strong. The woman said nothing about a new pacemaker but was asking an ephemeral question: "Outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody who is elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, a quality of life, or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?"
Sure, a silly question, but Obama replied honestly:
"I don't think that we can make judgments based on people's 'spirit.' Uh, that would be, uh, a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that, uh, say that, uh, we are going to provide good quality care for all people. End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make. But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made by private insurers. At least we can let doctors know -- and your mom know -- that you know what, maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller."
He wasnt talking about whether the woman should have a new pacemaker, or anything like it.
I hate to be the one to tell you but UHC does NOT take care of everyone. I have a friend in Canada who's spending a TON of money to take care of his mother who is 100 and dying..
Oh, I'm sorry you're confused....this is the US we're talking about here.....uh, we're not in Canada..... don't make us feel bad about how other countries have better health care than we do.....we already know that...
Now isn't it sad one would even have to hold a fundraiser for medical treatment in this country. Had he been born in any other industrialized country (remember, we're the only industrialized country without universal health care), he'd have his treatment already, especially if he had been born in France.
I'm all for donating. I just find it sad one would even have to hold a fundraiser.
Why do you think it's sad that there are people out there WILLING to give to a local fundraiser to help a family pay for medical bills? I think it's a grand idea. In fact, I was reading articles about it, trying to figure out where I could send a donation.
But take away my freedom of CHOOSING to help by REQUIRING me to pay a stranger's medical treatment (Which is what your UHC is) and I won't have the money, or the will, to help when the government won't allow the doctor to even offer it as an option because the GOVERNMENT is choosing who gets to take part in the experimental treatment.
Can't you all see? Someone will STILL be making those decisions. It amazes me that some people truly believe every sickness will be cured and everyone will live well into their 90's once we have UHC.
Maybe I am just blessed to live around such giving people, but where I come from we have local and regional fundraisers to help families in need. Hell, we have ice cream buckets at cash registers just about every place you go into. I personally know a few families who have well-benefited from these types of fundraisers. Dances, socials, you name it, we raise it. That's what community is about.
I greatly desire health insurance changes. My wish is that everyone have major medical insurance, but there are better ways to go about it rather than punching all of us in the gut and raiding our wallets while we recover. The answer isn't more government intrusion.
I hate to be the one to tell you but UHC does NOT take care of everyone. I have a friend in Canada who's spending a TON of money to take care of his mother who is 100 and dying..
Why? Is she an illegal? My 80 year-old mother lives in Canada, and she just had major surgery and is about to undergo chemo and radiation treatments, and has not paid a single cent, and no negotiating or paperwork either.
I'm tired of hearing some of you scream at the top of your lungs while failing to act. You say 'the free market would let this child die.' YOU are the free market. You say the insurance company is heartless and cruel while you sit there typing on your laptops with high speed connections. Hypocrites.
So you don't have $1000....I get it....times are tough all around. Do you have $10? Can you give up your expensive cable/phone/internet connection for a few months and send this family a few hundred dollars to save their son's life?
I'm challenging you all to put your money where your big fat mouths are....if you do nothing you are just as guilty as the insurance companies you rail against.
I tried to rep you, but I have to spread the wealth.
Maybe someone should get all the facts before just setting the blame at the foot of the insurance company. Apparently this disease affects about 600 children per year,...some are treatable with conventional therapy, and some are highly accelerated cases that are basically untreatable. The MIBG cancer treatment is still experimental, apparently originated in Britain, and there are only a handful of hospitals that even use the procedures,....on an experimental basis. The MIBG treatment is not a cure, but can make the cancer go into remission is some cases,...but can give relief of the painful symptoms in almost every case.
If one thinks that universal healthcare as proposed by the government would allow this type of treatment, then think again. What was it Mr. Obama said about terminal patients,..."give them a pill and make them comfortable",...or something to that effect? Good luck with that.
I feel for the family, but in all honesty the private carrier made the same decision that the government would have made. Regrettable, but true,...in my opinion.
Insurance companies don't like to pay for any treatment that is expensive and will find a way to deny it. If the treatment cost only $100, I doubt that this would be an issue.
Capitalism and medical care are often counter productive to life. Profit wins over saving a life! This is where our government can help and has helped.
One good example is the Orphan drug program. Drug companies did not want to produce drugs that would save the lives of people with rare diseases because it simply was not profitable to make a drug that very few would buy. Hence the government stepped it and helped save lives!
Quote:
"We have to make a profit to make this drug," said Dr. David Meeker of Genzyme General, which is co-marketing Aldurazyme with BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. "It's not enough just to recoup our costs."
Quote:
Congress passed the Orphan Drug Act in 1983 to prompt drug makers to address rare diseases they would otherwise ignore. The law guarantees tax breaks, funding help and a seven-year monopoly to companies developing drugs for diseases that afflict fewer than 200,000 people.
Disease Information from NORD, National Organization for Rare Disorders, Inc. (http://www.rarediseases.org/nord/news/articles/orphandrugs_whopays - broken link)
Oh, I'm sorry you're confused....this is the US we're talking about here.....uh, we're not in Canada..... don't make us feel bad about how other countries have better health care than we do.....we already know that...
I hate to be the one to tell you, but Canada has UHC.
If you want to believe I proclaimed their system is better than ours, when telling you that my friend in Canda pays TONS of money to support his mother because the Canadian UHC system doesnt, then you are ignoring reality because it doesnt suit your argument
Insurance companies don't like to pay for any treatment that is expensive and will find a way to deny it. If the treatment cost only $100, I doubt that this would be an issue.
Capitalism and medical care are often counter productive to life. Profit wins over saving a life! This is where our government can help and has helped.
One good example is the Orphan drug program. Drug companies did not want to produce drugs that would save the lives of people with rare diseases because it simply was not profitable to make a drug that very few would buy. Hence the government stepped it and helped save lives!
Disease Information from NORD, National Organization for Rare Disorders, Inc. (http://www.rarediseases.org/nord/news/articles/orphandrugs_whopays - broken link)
If the insurance company doesn't "like to pay for any treatment that is expensive and will find a way to deny it",...then reckon why they paid for the first EXPERIMENTAL treatment for the boy?
Your argument is just more emotionalism not based in fact.
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.
