Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WLTX.com)   Insurance rejects transplant patient who needs $3200 a month for anti-rejection medication. Ironic tag succumbs to Obvious tag   (wltx.com) divider line 284
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

8927 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jan 2008 at 11:47 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



284 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-01-19 12:14:23 PM  
burndtdan: Uncle Karl: burndtdan: all i'm saying is if her continued life is worth that much money, she better do something god damned impressive with it.

we're all going to die, some sooner than others.

I hope your not around much longer.

why, because i accept the fact that i'm not immortal?


Nope, because your claiming that this women should die for a lack of money. I find that inhuman.
 
2008-01-19 12:15:03 PM  
rancidPlasma: burndtdan: all i'm saying is if her continued life is worth that much money
.....

That's the crux of it, isn't it? How can you put a price on someone's life? I'd smuggle myself into Canada if it meant, you know, living.


And that is why the free market fails at health care. The participants are not rational actors.
 
2008-01-19 12:16:28 PM  
Uncle Karl: The Free market cannot work in medicine, for the simple reason that in choosing medical care people are not rationale actors. When choosing a car you will pick the one that meets your needs and budget, when getting heart surgery budget is no concern only living is.

Life-and-death emergency treatment is a subset of all medical procedures.

It all goes back to the 80-20 rule -- 80 percent of the people use only 20 percent of the resources, and the remaining 20 percent of the people use 80 percent of the resources. Not only do we have to figure out how to maximize the return for each health care dollar spent, we need to decide whether or not it's fair to expect those 20 percent to pay as much of their own bill as they can afford.

/mandatory health savings accounts
 
2008-01-19 12:16:32 PM  
Uncle Karl: Nope, because your claiming that this women should die for a lack of money. I find that inhuman.

Thread over.

Uncle Karl wins.
 
2008-01-19 12:20:19 PM  
Snarfangel: Uncle Karl: The Free market cannot work in medicine, for the simple reason that in choosing medical care people are not rationale actors. When choosing a car you will pick the one that meets your needs and budget, when getting heart surgery budget is no concern only living is.

Life-and-death emergency treatment is a subset of all medical procedures.

It all goes back to the 80-20 rule -- 80 percent of the people use only 20 percent of the resources, and the remaining 20 percent of the people use 80 percent of the resources. Not only do we have to figure out how to maximize the return for each health care dollar spent, we need to decide whether or not it's fair to expect those 20 percent to pay as much of their own bill as they can afford.

/mandatory health savings accounts


Life and death is not the only portion of healthcare that has the non-rational actor problem. If I get two fingers cut off, am I going to shop around for the cheapest hospital or take the closest one no matter the cost?

This means there is little to no incentive to lower prices as the clients will pay anything. The only cut off is when most people can no longer pay at all.
 
2008-01-19 12:21:04 PM  
Uncle Karl:

Actually insurance companies should not and were never intended to profit from the premiums. They spread risk and invest that money to make a profit.


Spreading risk is one thing.
But this isn't risk. This is a sure thing. The insurance model doesn't quite work with pre-existing conditions- either you have to say, "medical care is an entitlement", and let "society" pay for it, or you have to say "people with pre-existing conditions have to fend for themselves."
The one thing you can't do, is go to someone with a $3200/month bill, and say, "maybe if I give you $150/month or so, you can pay this bill for me." Because why the heck would anyone take the other side of that deal?
 
2008-01-19 12:21:14 PM  
Uncle Karl: burndtdan: Uncle Karl: burndtdan: all i'm saying is if her continued life is worth that much money, she better do something god damned impressive with it.

we're all going to die, some sooner than others.

I hope your not around much longer.

why, because i accept the fact that i'm not immortal?

Nope, because your claiming that this women should die for a lack of money. I find that inhuman.


no, not at all. i'm claiming that for all the money in the world, she is still going to die anyways. she can spend all the money we can offer her, and she can't escape it.
 
2008-01-19 12:22:17 PM  
Uncle Karl: LOCNAR69: -would any of you dopes pay $38 grand for a busted car knowing you have to pay that every farking year to keep it going?

A car and a human are two very different things.

for those who think national health care is the answer--go to canada or england and see how THAT'S working out--there's no way they'd pay for this person

The Canadians would pay.


no way would she be covered in canada..they have a 2 year waiting list for minor surgeries

and yes--a car and a person aare different things but the business world doesn't look at it that way
 
2008-01-19 12:22:35 PM  
rumpelstiltskin: Uncle Karl:

Actually insurance companies should not and were never intended to profit from the premiums. They spread risk and invest that money to make a profit.

Spreading risk is one thing.
But this isn't risk. This is a sure thing. The insurance model doesn't quite work with pre-existing conditions- either you have to say, "medical care is an entitlement", and let "society" pay for it, or you have to say "people with pre-existing conditions have to fend for themselves."
The one thing you can't do, is go to someone with a $3200/month bill, and say, "maybe if I give you $150/month or so, you can pay this bill for me." Because why the heck would anyone take the other side of that deal?


I was not arguing that, I was pointing out the fallacy of the suggestion that profit is made from premiums.
 
2008-01-19 12:22:53 PM  
She should contact the company which makes the drug she needs.

RXAssist
 
2008-01-19 12:23:39 PM  
RandomFeature: Maddogjew: The real question should be why the drugs cost so much. Does it cost anywhere near that to manufacture them? Making a profit at knife point is OK if your a drug company I suppose.

Drugs cost so much in the US because 90% of the companies that develop the drugs are located in the US and almost all the R&D is done here. People in the US bear the cost of that R&D while the rest of the world just gets the benefits, a.k.a. the drugs.

Want to change that? Force the rest of the world to help bear the cost of R&D.


Why would you need to charge the highest prices in the place where you spend the most on R&D? Is there some logical reasons why they couldn't spend all their money in one place and get most of their revenue from some place else?

I think the more likely explanation is that they charge more in the US because they can get away with it in the US. If they could get away with it they would charge higher prices elswhere too.

The R&D angle is also a bit misleading. Medical research is not exclusively done in the US, but all around thw world. A lot of the ground work for the ideas that the drug companies end up selling is actaully created by research financed by governments.

Most tellingly the drug companies in fact only spend a fraction of the money on R&D that they spend on advertising. They also tend to reap in large profits in the end.

Drug companies are for-profit ornaizations and should not be expected to work for the betterment of mankind or be given any benefit for their supposed charitable efforts. It is profit all the way.
 
2008-01-19 12:23:48 PM  
LOCNAR69: Uncle Karl: LOCNAR69: -would any of you dopes pay $38 grand for a busted car knowing you have to pay that every farking year to keep it going?

A car and a human are two very different things.

for those who think national health care is the answer--go to canada or england and see how THAT'S working out--there's no way they'd pay for this person

The Canadians would pay.

no way would she be covered in canada..they have a 2 year waiting list for minor surgeries

and yes--a car and a person aare different things but the business world doesn't look at it that way


2 year wait is number one a lie, and number two would not apply to life saving medical care.

I do not wish to converse with liars.
 
2008-01-19 12:24:31 PM  
letrole: It's more like, "We'll keep you alive until you're 19, but after that, you have to be a productive citizen who pays for his own upkeep. You don't have to die, but that's your choice".

Because all 19 year olds can get a $3200/month job. Not counting food and housing. And that, ... without a college degree. Right. It's just a matter of pulling oneself by one's bootstraps.

The invisible hand of the market is jerking you off.
 
2008-01-19 12:24:56 PM  
Loki-L: RandomFeature: Maddogjew: The real question should be why the drugs cost so much. Does it cost anywhere near that to manufacture them? Making a profit at knife point is OK if your a drug company I suppose.

Drugs cost so much in the US because 90% of the companies that develop the drugs are located in the US and almost all the R&D is done here. People in the US bear the cost of that R&D while the rest of the world just gets the benefits, a.k.a. the drugs.

Want to change that? Force the rest of the world to help bear the cost of R&D.

Why would you need to charge the highest prices in the place where you spend the most on R&D? Is there some logical reasons why they couldn't spend all their money in one place and get most of their revenue from some place else?

I think the more likely explanation is that they charge more in the US because they can get away with it in the US. If they could get away with it they would charge higher prices elswhere too.

The R&D angle is also a bit misleading. Medical research is not exclusively done in the US, but all around thw world. A lot of the ground work for the ideas that the drug companies end up selling is actaully created by research financed by governments.

Most tellingly the drug companies in fact only spend a fraction of the money on R&D that they spend on advertising. They also tend to reap in large profits in the end.

Drug companies are for-profit ornaizations and should not be expected to work for the betterment of mankind or be given any benefit for their supposed charitable efforts. It is profit all the way.


Just to add the NIH, pays for much of the research.
 
2008-01-19 12:24:57 PM  
WorldCitizen: This is why we need a government health insurance plan to fill the gaps where the market does not work.

Like when Mom failed to get a job with employer-provided benefits for all these years? Most plans (all I think) continue dependent coverage for full-time college students, which would buy her another four years, and at that point presumably the girl would get a job with insurance.

Like another poster correctly pointed out, why was there no advance planning, lobbying, etcs to prepare for this day? There are numerous charties and yes, even the evil drug companies are now working with the truly destitute. $40,000 a year is CHEAP advertising and goodwill to show how they saved the life of this girl.

BUT, to your point...your kind of thinking is exactly what got them in this mess. The expectation of the welfare class that government will swoop in and take care of them is what got her here in the first place.

The whole thing has a sort of Bonfire of the Vanities feel to it.....
 
2008-01-19 12:25:57 PM  
LOCNAR69: SwiftFox: for those who think national health care is the answer--go to canada or england and see how THAT'S working out--there's no way they'd pay for this person

yes i work for an insurance company--and yes--its a BUSINESS

......

You really think that the Canadians would perform a heart surgery on someone and then toss them on the street to die?
 
2008-01-19 12:26:17 PM  
WorldCitizen: This is why we need a government health insurance plan to fill the gaps where the market does not work. The government insurance can exist along side private insurance plans. The scary socialized medicine people can STFU because the government would not own the hospitals or employ the doctors any more than they do now. They would simply provide coverage for those that the market fails. Right now that's something over 40,000,000 Americans. I'm sorry free market purists, but it does not work for everything. It does not work for defense. It does not work for the police. It quite often does not work in health care coverage. Here is a huge, open, obvious example of its fail (that and tens of millions of other people without coverage).

Think of the government health insurance agency as something like the Post Office. It's there to provide basic service. You can still use FedEx if you want. The Post Office existing does not prohibit you from using private shipping services. The Post Office has to recognize market forces and compete on some level with private companies. But if FedEx folds tomorrow, the Post Office will still be there to keep the circulation of communications and information going.


there already are programs like this--called MEDICAID--

would you want a medical facility run the same way they run the post office==no thanks
 
2008-01-19 12:26:17 PM  
LOCNAR69: no way would she be covered in canada..they have a 2 year waiting list for minor surgeries

They may have waiting lists for minor, elective surgeries. But not 2 years, and heart transplants are not minor, elective surgeries, dumbass.
 
2008-01-19 12:26:30 PM  
When, oh when, will the general public begin to understand the difference between a single-payer health care system and socialized medicine?

Of course, I suppose that hoping for comprehension from the general public is being a bit optimistic.
 
2008-01-19 12:27:12 PM  
LOCNAR69: WorldCitizen: This is why we need a government health insurance plan to fill the gaps where the market does not work. The government insurance can exist along side private insurance plans. The scary socialized medicine people can STFU because the government would not own the hospitals or employ the doctors any more than they do now. They would simply provide coverage for those that the market fails. Right now that's something over 40,000,000 Americans. I'm sorry free market purists, but it does not work for everything. It does not work for defense. It does not work for the police. It quite often does not work in health care coverage. Here is a huge, open, obvious example of its fail (that and tens of millions of other people without coverage).

Think of the government health insurance agency as something like the Post Office. It's there to provide basic service. You can still use FedEx if you want. The Post Office existing does not prohibit you from using private shipping services. The Post Office has to recognize market forces and compete on some level with private companies. But if FedEx folds tomorrow, the Post Office will still be there to keep the circulation of communications and information going.

there already are programs like this--called MEDICAID--

would you want a medical facility run the same way they run the post office==no thanks


The medical facility would not be run by government agents. Take a trip outside the USA.
 
2008-01-19 12:27:13 PM  
LOCNAR69: no way would she be covered in canada..they have a 2 year waiting list for minor surgeries

Care to give any sort of evidence for that claim?
 
2008-01-19 12:27:59 PM  
Hollywithaneye: When, oh when, will the general public begin to understand the difference between a single-payer health care system and socialized medicine?

Of course, I suppose that hoping for comprehension from the general public is being a bit optimistic.


When they realize what they often call socialized medicine is not.
 
2008-01-19 12:29:19 PM  
Uncle Karl: LOCNAR69: -would any of you dopes pay $38 grand for a busted car knowing you have to pay that every farking year to keep it going?

A car and a human are two very different things.

for those who think national health care is the answer--go to canada or england and see how THAT'S working out--there's no way they'd pay for this person

The Canadians would pay.


As would the NHS
 
2008-01-19 12:30:00 PM  
this thread had some funny... then FAIL.
 
2008-01-19 12:30:34 PM  
DuncanMhor: Uncle Karl: LOCNAR69: -would any of you dopes pay $38 grand for a busted car knowing you have to pay that every farking year to keep it going?

A car and a human are two very different things.

for those who think national health care is the answer--go to canada or england and see how THAT'S working out--there's no way they'd pay for this person

The Canadians would pay.

As would the NHS


I am willing to bet the people who make these crazy claims about those medical systems have never been to those nations or used such systems.

/I actually has
 
2008-01-19 12:31:21 PM  
LOCNAR69: WorldCitizen: This is why we need a government health insurance plan to fill the gaps where the market does not work. The government insurance can exist along side private insurance plans. The scary socialized medicine people can STFU because the government would not own the hospitals or employ the doctors any more than they do now. They would simply provide coverage for those that the market fails. Right now that's something over 40,000,000 Americans. I'm sorry free market purists, but it does not work for everything. It does not work for defense. It does not work for the police. It quite often does not work in health care coverage. Here is a huge, open, obvious example of its fail (that and tens of millions of other people without coverage).

Think of the government health insurance agency as something like the Post Office. It's there to provide basic service. You can still use FedEx if you want. The Post Office existing does not prohibit you from using private shipping services. The Post Office has to recognize market forces and compete on some level with private companies. But if FedEx folds tomorrow, the Post Office will still be there to keep the circulation of communications and information going.

there already are programs like this--called MEDICAID--

would you want a medical facility run the same way they run the post office==no thanks


Again, if you read what I wrote, that's why I said a government insurance policy and not government run hospitals or facilities.

And not all of the 40,000,000 plus Americans who don't have health insurance qualify for Medicaid. I'm also not saying that the government health insurance policy should necessarily be free. There should be a sliding scale of payment based upon income and number of family members. If you set up something like this Medicaid would just be merged in with the same system.

A government insurance policy to cover the gaps in the private market is not the same as government ownership of health care facilities or providers.
 
2008-01-19 12:31:33 PM  
letrole: etymxris
I'm not sure I understand Medicaid's logic. "We'll keep you alive until you're 19 but then you have to die, mwuhahahaha."

It's more like, "We'll keep you alive until you're 19, but after that, you have to be a productive citizen who pays for his own upkeep. You don't have to die, but that's your choice".


If you don't have an extra $3200 dollars a month cash after food & shelter, you're not a productive citizen? I guess 90% of the people I know are surprisingly hard-working societal parasites.
 
2008-01-19 12:33:21 PM  
LOCNAR69: for those who think national health care is the answer--go to canada or england and see how THAT'S working out--there's no way they'd pay for this person

I doubt it works that way in Canada or England. But I can assure you we'd pay for this person in France. If anything like what is described happened here, people would take it to the street and heads in government would roll.

yes i work for an insurance company--and yes--its a BUSINESS

That's cool. I work for the insurance industry, in IT. I'm glad our health insurance system isn't orchestrated by those corporations -- from an IT P.O.V., the gov't here is 10 years ahead of private corps. Overhead is below 2%, as opposed to 30% or more in the private sector.
 
2008-01-19 12:33:49 PM  
d'art: Oh, but let's not get into the evils of universal health care, which are... ... ...


um... ... ...


oh yeah, it looks vaguely socialist, and anything that looks vaguely socialist is bad because the invisible hand of the market cures all ills.



S'Ok. In Britain, she'd still be waiting for the first one. I doubt she'd be getting better care.

Anyway, what's up with that drug regimen anyway? Surely not every transplant recipient needs that?

/They won't insure her cuz she's black. RACE CARD!

//Ha. Her and her belief in God. She's a sickly specimen to begin with, and the ruthless nature has selected her for removal from the gene pool. Don't fark with natural selection. Boo hoo and good-bye.
 
2008-01-19 12:34:34 PM  
Contact the drug companies directly, they have programs for this. The hospital can tell them how to do it. My uncle has the same problem, new kidney no insurance. He gets the cocktail for $50 a month.
 
2008-01-19 12:35:12 PM  
Couldn't she get a job(if she is able to work) somewhere that offers a group plan health insurance? I thought most group plans in the US were required to take pre existing conditions.

Alternatively, she could get a lower paying job at McDonalds, etc...and qualify for state health insurance, correct? Sure it's not the best thing to do, but with the medicine she needs, I guess you gotta do what you gotta do.
 
2008-01-19 12:35:56 PM  
stonecyffer: letrole: etymxris
I'm not sure I understand Medicaid's logic. "We'll keep you alive until you're 19 but then you have to die, mwuhahahaha."

It's more like, "We'll keep you alive until you're 19, but after that, you have to be a productive citizen who pays for his own upkeep. You don't have to die, but that's your choice".

If you don't have an extra $3200 dollars a month cash after food & shelter, you're not a productive citizen? I guess 90% of the people I know are surprisingly hard-working societal parasites.



Maybe the gummint should let them keep more of the money they earn.
 
2008-01-19 12:36:06 PM  
i feel the need to clarify my point...

i hope the girl gets the money she needs and lives happily ever after. i hope someday we can clone hearts and people who have conditions that require transplants are all cured across the board.

however, realizing that just might not happen in this case, and that it is highly likely there were other recipients on the transplant list with her that are now dead, i feel that sometimes, it's best to just accept the fact that you are mortal, that the long life you assumed you were entitled to is not going to happen. come to a peaceful acceptance of this, because it's going to happen sooner than you want no matter what you do to hold it off.
 
2008-01-19 12:36:15 PM  
clancifer: From TFA: "She says she's recieved nothing but rejection from insurance companies. "She doesn't qualify for this insurance but why don't you try another insurance," says Brown."

You think? Why would a new insurance company want to sign up someone that is an automatic payout of $3200 a month? I'm not taking anything away from the heartache in which they are experiencing, but they need to really appeal their case to some charities healthcare system in the US needs a serious overhaul



FTFM
 
2008-01-19 12:36:25 PM  
Nocens: Contact the drug companies directly, they have programs for this. The hospital can tell them how to do it. My uncle has the same problem, new kidney no insurance. He gets the cocktail for $50 a month.

Which while a good thing, is no substitute for a real program. Those companies can say no whenever they want and of course do this to prevent a real system from being applied.

They do this because they understand that without it something would be done, as healthcare purchasing does not involve rational actors and therefore the free market does not work in this instance.
 
2008-01-19 12:36:42 PM  
Hollywithaneye: When, oh when, will the general public begin to understand the difference between a single-payer health care system and socialized medicine?

Of course, I suppose that hoping for comprehension from the general public is being a bit optimistic.


It doesn't help that you can't have a rational political discussion about that very topic because as soon as you mention government + health care coverage the Republicans jump into "scare the voters into voting for me" mode and start saying "socialized medicine. BOO!" It doesn't matter if it is that or not; they know that they will get votes by saying that. And that is more important to them than the health of millions of Americans.
 
2008-01-19 12:36:57 PM  
LOCNAR69: for those who think national health care is the answer--go to canada or england and see how THAT'S working out--there's no way they'd pay for this person

I don't know how we'd view her now (maybe she could apply for asylum) but I can assure you that the National Health Service performs lots and lots of heart transplants and supplies patients with appropriate medication afterwards.

As with your system, the supplies last for the rest of the patient's life, although it seems there may be a subtle difference in interpretation lurking there.
 
2008-01-19 12:37:15 PM  
burndtdan: i feel the need to clarify my point...

i hope the girl gets the money she needs and lives happily ever after. i hope someday we can clone hearts and people who have conditions that require transplants are all cured across the board.

however, realizing that just might not happen in this case, and that it is highly likely there were other recipients on the transplant list with her that are now dead, i feel that sometimes, it's best to just accept the fact that you are mortal, that the long life you assumed you were entitled to is not going to happen. come to a peaceful acceptance of this, because it's going to happen sooner than you want no matter what you do to hold it off.


Or we could be a decent society and take care of our weakest?
 
2008-01-19 12:37:54 PM  
LOCNAR69: no way would she be covered in canada..they have a 2 year waiting list for minor surgeries

and yes--a car and a person aare different things but the business world doesn't look at it that way

.......

Anecdotal alert! In Vancouver, my mom was diagnosed as needing heart valve replacement surgery. Two weeks later, she was in the operating table having the procedure done. She was in good shape when they diagnosed it, except she tired easily.

You are right that for minor surgeries, people can wait. A friend of mine busted his knee and waited a good 6 months to have a cat scan and the surgery, so it's not all honky dory perfect.

Canadians in general would rather be with the system than without it. The polls show this.

You mentioned that Americans would fark it up? Why can all industrialized countries in the world implement universal healthcare, but not the states? What makes them such a failure?
 
2008-01-19 12:38:13 PM  
Meh, I hate it when I can't find statistics for the same years. Between 2001-2003, Canada averaged 161 heart transplants per year. In 2005, there were 2125 transplants in the U.S. So it looks like there is a higher rate of transplantation in the U.S., since we have roughly ten times the population of Canada.
 
2008-01-19 12:38:50 PM  
--------------------
RandomFeature 2008-01-19 12:04:56 PM
Maddogjew: The real question should be why the drugs cost so much. Does it cost anywhere near that to manufacture them? Making a profit at knife point is OK if your a drug company I suppose.

Drugs cost so much in the US because 90% of the companies that develop the drugs are located in the US and almost all the R&D is done here. People in the US bear the cost of that R&D while the rest of the world just gets the benefits, a.k.a. the drugs.

Want to change that? Force the rest of the world to help bear the cost of R&D.
---------------------

Bullshiat. R&D is done at the taxpayers expense in universities.
 
2008-01-19 12:39:18 PM  
I love insurance companies..we pay such high premiums, but the minute you need their services, they are nowhere to be found.
 
2008-01-19 12:39:46 PM  
as a 19yr old with crohn's disease and an ostomy who just got dropped from her health insurance because she couldn't afford ungodly premiums, i'm getting a kick out of this thread!

/would gladly let darwin have his way.
//unfortunately my parents don't think like me.
 
2008-01-19 12:40:45 PM  
rancidPlasma: LOCNAR69: no way would she be covered in canada..they have a 2 year waiting list for minor surgeries

and yes--a car and a person aare different things but the business world doesn't look at it that way
.......

Anecdotal alert! In Vancouver, my mom was diagnosed as needing heart valve replacement surgery. Two weeks later, she was in the operating table having the procedure done. She was in good shape when they diagnosed it, except she tired easily.

You are right that for minor surgeries, people can wait. A friend of mine busted his knee and waited a good 6 months to have a cat scan and the surgery, so it's not all honky dory perfect.

Canadians in general would rather be with the system than without it. The polls show this.

You mentioned that Americans would fark it up? Why can all industrialized countries in the world implement universal healthcare, but not the states? What makes them such a failure?


It is a cultural issue, Americans are conditioned to be uncomfortable with this. Many seem to believe that it is ok to let someone die for a lack of money.
 
2008-01-19 12:42:34 PM  
Snarfangel: Meh, I hate it when I can't find statistics for the same years. Between 2001-2003, Canada averaged 161 heart transplants per year. In 2005, there were 2125 transplants in the U.S. So it looks like there is a higher rate of transplantation in the U.S., since we have roughly ten times the population of Canada.

Canadians may receive more preventive medicine, which may mean less need for transplants.

/an once of prevention is better then a pound of cure.
 
2008-01-19 12:43:42 PM  
Uncle Karl: Or we could be a decent society and take care of our weakest?

like i said, i hope it happens in this case, and in any case. i'm also realistic and understand that in the current situation (which unfortunately, for better or worse, is the situation this girl has to survive within), that isn't always possible or practical. in this case, it isn't very practical. should it be? sure. but it isn't.

but my point isn't at a societal level... it's on a personal level. like others have pointed out, her family should have been able to see this coming years ago. at the very least, they could have been preparing for this eventuality, but they didn't.

and in the end, it's all much ado about nothing... she's still going to die someday, it's going to be just as sad and tragic to her loved ones as it would have been earlier in life.

how about instead of putting the money they're spending on stringing her along, they spend that money on actually improving the process so that eventually we don't have to worry about things like this? how's that for an ideal? it's just as unlikely as yours, but at least it's a longer term solution.
 
2008-01-19 12:44:22 PM  
letrole:
It's more like, "We'll keep you alive until you're 19, but after that, you have to be a productive citizen who pays for his own upkeep. You don't have to die, but that's your choice".

nictamer:
Because all 19 year olds can get a $3200/month job. Not counting food and housing. And that, ... without a college degree. Right. It's just a matter of pulling oneself by one's bootstraps.

There are very very very few 19 year olds worth $3200 of maintenance monthly. After all that investment, she still ends up as a citizen who cannot fully contribute to society. She is still a drain on her mother, so there's another loss in productivity. And, if her treatment is extended, she is likely to give birth to one or more sickly children who will themselves be a drain on the resources of the state.

If you must spend other peoples's money, at least do it responsibly. Use that monthly $3200 for highway maintenance, where it actually benefits everyone.
 
2008-01-19 12:45:23 PM  
burndtdan: and in the end, it's all much ado about nothing... she's still going to die someday, it's going to be just as sad and tragic to her loved ones as it would have been earlier in life.

With that logic why have medical care at all?
 
2008-01-19 12:46:26 PM  
letrole: There are very very very few 19 year olds worth $3200 of maintenance monthly. After all that investment, she still ends up as a citizen who cannot fully contribute to society. She is still a drain on her mother, so there's another loss in productivity. And, if her treatment is extended, she is likely to give birth to one or more sickly children who will themselves be a drain on the resources of the state.

If you must spend other peoples's money, at least do it responsibly. Use that monthly $3200 for highway maintenance, where it actually benefits everyone.


So then people should be allowed to die for lack of money?
 
2008-01-19 12:48:04 PM  
letrole: There are very very very few 19 year olds worth $3200 of maintenance monthly.

Are you worth it? or your children?
Who gets to make this decision?
 
Displayed 50 of 284 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report