This happened in America?

[MzDiz]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/14/151930/63

I just read this story, so forgive me if you've seen it. I'm sickened. I'm sorry it's a little depressing, but I think it's something that people should know about.

[CapeCodTenor]

I'm probably going to regret getting into this one...but, the story damns "Right wing nuts" for this. Well, I'm sure there are lots of hospitals in lots of states that won't go that extra mile if you don't have insurance. So I'm sure it's not just a republican thing.

[MzDiz]

Yeah, the story is from a leftist stance. I seriously hope this thread doesn't degrade into a partisan slapping match though. That would do that poor woman no good at all.

[laura001]

Oh My! How terribly awful! There are not any words to describe this act!

[discernment]

Dailykos=another liberal Bush hating site run by people still bitter about the election. I bet they still believe that Dan Rather is a credible source.

[cardaway]

THIS is the true face of "compassionate conservatism" and of the phony "culture of life". They don't give a rat's ***, as long as the insurance will pay the bill. No insurance? Good-bye, you die.

::yes::

[Charade]

That's sad story but I had a hard time getting past the typical "DailyKOS" points. Do you think ALL Republicans AGREE with that law? Do you think ALL Democrats DISAGREE with that law? The answer is NO but that doesn't stop the left from making stereotypical/unfair characterizations of Republicans.

Interesting that the DailyKOS rant didn't quote relevant (IMO) parts of the story (but they were kind enough to provide a link) such as...

The hospital declined an on-camera interview, but in a statement said they "contacted 12 facilities including hospitals, long term acute care facilities and nursing homes, all of whom declined to accept the patient.”

But a Dallas attorney who worked on the law said money has nothing to do with it and only clinical matters are considered.

Dr. Allan Shulkin, who specializes in pulmonary and critical care medicine at another Dallas hospital, supports the law.

"Sometimes applying technology when there is no other opportunity for recovery is wrong not because it’s expensive, but because it prolong suffering," he said.

A hospital spokesperson the facility offered to hire an immigration attorney free of charge to help bring the woman's mother from East Africa.

Relatives, however, said the East African process was too lengthy.

The bottom line is WHO ultimately gets to decide when care should end when funds are exhausted? Should hospitals be forced by law to provide life support for terminal patients until they pass?

[Olaf]

Yeah, the story is from a leftist stance. I seriously hope this thread doesn't degrade into a partisan slapping match though. That would do that poor woman no good at all.


A leftist stance from the Kool aid drinkers at DailyKos?!!!! Imagine that. :rolleyes2

Here's a slightly different slant from Slate

Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2133518/)

[momof2inPA]

George Bush will meet his judgement. The Republicans are trying to make health savings accounts the norm, meaning only the wealthy and the healthy will be able to afford health care and insurance, so what happened to this lady could happen to anyone with a run of bad luck and a terminal illness, well, anyone unlucky enough to live in Texas. You shouldn't have to be rich to be treated compassionately. God bless that poor woman who just wanted her mother by her side and struggled to breath for 15 minutes.

[Charade]

George Bush will meet his judgement. The Republicans are trying to make health savings accounts the norm, meaning only the wealthy and the healthy will be able to afford health care and insurance, so what happened to this lady could happen to anyone with a run of bad luck and a terminal illness, well, anyone unlucky enough to live in Texas. You shouldn't have to be rich to be treated compassionately. God bless that poor woman who just wanted her mother by her side and struggled to breath for 15 minutes.

Define "compassionately".

Did you even read the linked article or the parts I quoted? If you did, didn't that make any difference?

[CathrynRose]

Dailykos=another liberal Bush hating site run by people still bitter about the election. I bet they still believe that Dan Rather is a credible source.


::yes::

It borders on propaganda. :rolleyes:

[momof2inPA]

Here's a slightly different slant from Slate

That article suggests that poor people should have to choose between groceries/milk and health care/life support. It shouldn't be a choice. In the USA, the "greatest country in the world", all citizens have a right to food and health care. You shouldn't have to be one of the few rich people who can independently afford Blue Cross for a lifetime to be given air until your body gives out. Suffocating is a horrible way to die.

Could you afford 18k a year for your own family health care? That's what my BIL pays, out of pocket, as a self-employed person. That's what the Republicans want us all to pay- out of pocket, not by our employer.

[momof2inPA]

Define "compassionately".

Did you even read the linked article or the parts I quoted? If you did, didn't that make any difference?

I read both articles. They let that lady suffocate to save money because she couldn't afford health insurance. Did you read the articles?

[DVC Jen]

There is absolutely no excuse for that. In my eyes that is murder. And just for the record.. it was mentioned on the news here, but not much.

[Olaf]

A little off topic, but here's an interesting article from the Christian Science Monitor.

Article (http://search.csmonitor.com/search_content/1230/p01s02-usec.html)

How it pertains to this thread is the finding that "86 percent said they had no unmet need for a doctor."

Somehow we all just manage to muddle along here in horrible, capitalistic, uninsured America.

[momof2inPA]

How it pertains to this thread is the finding that "86 percent said they had no unmet need for a doctor."

So, it's ok for 14% of Americans to have unmet medical needs? Let's ask the lady in the article if it was ok with her. Oh wait, she's DEAD.

Just because you, personally, are sheltered from the realities of poverty and the uninsured doesn't mean they don't exist. The number of uninsured in this country are rising at an alarming rate. Are we going to let them all suffocate when they have cancer or copd (which is also uncurable and expensive), or just the poor ones?

[CapeCodTenor]

...all citizens have a right to food and health care.

I agree with you that no one in this great country should go hungry or even without healthcare, but can you point out where in the constitution where it says we have a right to healthcare? If there is indeed a right for healthcare and I missed it, then I want back pay for all the healthcare I paid out of pocket.

[RobinMarie]

Dailykos=another liberal Bush hating site run by people still bitter about the election.


Pay attention - it's not just liberals displeased with Bush.

[momof2inPA]

I agree with you that no one in this great country should go hungry or even without healthcare, but can you point out where in the constitution where it says we have a right to healthcare? If this is indeed a right for healthcare and I missed it, then I want back pay for all the healthcare I paid out of pocket.

How about, "LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" GW and the Texas legislature took this woman's LIFE when they denied her the ventilator because she was poor.

Why do Republicans want to deny people health insurance? I don't get it. Texas has the highest percentage of un-insured children in the U.S. It seems that many of you think this is ok, acceptable, and they're doing a fine job.

They killed the lady in the article. I can't believe any right-to-lifer or Catholic would support that.

[CapeCodTenor]

"Life" yes, but does it say that he government should pay for it - Nope.

[discernment]

Pay attention - it's not just liberals displeased with Bush.

I agree. Count me as a conservative that is not 100% pleased with Bush.

But this situation would have happened regardless of which President was in office or political party in charge.

The left wing nuts at dailykos blame Bush for everything that happens in this country. That is what I take exception to.

[MzDiz]

You know, I'm sorry that I posted the link from where I did. I read the story from several sources before I posted that one, but I felt that it illustrated MY personal feelings about the situation best. After all, I had to listen to the culture of life drivel as much as the next person. Where were the pro-lifers on this one? Could they have stopped picketing a Planned Parenthood for an afternoon to help this woman a little? Honestly, I didn't want to see this thread turn into a grudge match. Let's pretend I posted it from another source. The point is - they pulled the plug on a responsive woman and let her die against her wishes. Regardless of why, this is wrong. Simply wrong.

[cardaway]

Where were the pro-lifers on this one? Could they have stopped picketing a Planned Parenthood for an afternoon to help this woman a little?

You didn't believe the term pro-life really meant pro-life did you?

[Charade]

There is absolutely no excuse for that. In my eyes that is murder.

Did you read the article linked in the OP's message or the parts I quoted?

It said that 12 other facilities DECLINED to accept her AND the hospital offered to pay for an immigration lawyer but the family said the process was too lengthy.

So there are a lot of people complaisant in her "murder". And I'd bet that not all of them were Republicans.

[CapeCodTenor]

So there are a lot of people complaisant in her "murder". And I'd bet that not all of them were Republicans.
I'm wondering where were the rich liberal dems? Surely someone from Hollywood could have stepped up to the plate and helped pay for some of it.

[DawnCt1]

You shouldn't have to be one of the few rich people who can independently afford Blue Cross for a lifetime to be given air until your body gives out. Suffocating is a horrible way to die.

.
DH's cousin was well insured. He had a stroke that left him fully conscious but required a ventilator. They had difficulty weaning him from the vent so pursued a full diagnostic work up to see if there were any other issues. It was determined that he had metastatic adrenal cancer that was inoperable. (had only mild belly pain pre stroke). He was facing a imminently term nal cancer (3 months) complicated by being ventilator dependent. His team of physicians met with the family and recommended removal of the vent. He was well sedated, did not "suffocate" in a manner that would have resulted in him being uncomfortable and he quietly passed away. It happens every day in every hospital in America. It is often the best and most humane treatment for the patient.

[MzDiz]

Can this not be an opportunity to politically bash people? I don't care who didn't step up, be it republicans or democrats or aliens or one-toothed vermicious kenids. It doesn't matter if it was Pat Robertson that wasn't there to squint creepily and pray over her or Richard Gere wasn't there to gong bells over her head, the point is that it happened and it wasn't her choice.

[DawnCt1]

I read both articles. They let that lady suffocate to save money because she couldn't afford health insurance. Did you read the articles?

The lady died because she was terminally ill with an incurable cancer for which there was no further treatment. Do you honestly believe, in your wildest imaginings, that if we had a single payer government plan, that she would have been kept alive even 10 days? Health care will be rationed. There are finite dollars for infinate problems. In most countries that have socialized medicine, dialysis is not available to diabetics after the age of 55. They are not eligible for organ transplants, and hip replacement surgery for an 80 year old could take a year. That means that an elderly person, who was otherwise vital could literally spend the rest of their life in a wheel chair or die waiting for something that we do within days. The dollars go to those who have the best chance of recovery. Most Medicare dollars are spent in the last 45 days of life. Believe me, under a single payer plan, it will be cut to the last ( fill in a much smaller number) days of life.

[sha_lyn]

Great post DawnCT..... Funny how everyone goes right past the part that the woman had terminal cancer and was dying. The family wouldn't let her go but wouldn't/couldn't pay the bills.

[DawnCt1]

There is absolutely no excuse for that. In my eyes that is murder. And just for the record.. it was mentioned on the news here, but not much.

It wasn't murder. She was a terminally ill woman with absolutely no hope of recovery who could not survive without extreme measures of care, complicated equipment and she was provided with end of life care.

[Charade]

, the point is that it happened and it wasn't her choice.

What is your solution? Detailed as much as possible.

[Disney Doll]

George Bush will meet his judgement. The Republicans are trying to make health savings accounts the norm, meaning only the wealthy and the healthy will be able to afford health care and insurance, so what happened to this lady could happen to anyone with a run of bad luck and a terminal illness, well, anyone unlucky enough to live in Texas. You shouldn't have to be rich to be treated compassionately. God bless that poor woman who just wanted her mother by her side and struggled to breath for 15 minutes.
As a nurse in an inner-city hopital, I can tell you from first-hand experience that most of our patients are not wealthy or insured and they all receive care. And their ethnicity has nothing to do with it. If anything, ethnicity helps because most of the patients or their families are very well-versed in their rights and have no problem playing the race or ethnicity card when necessary.

I can speculate on a few things:
1. The article the OP cited did not contain all the facts of the issue, as evidenced by additional information provided by other posters.
2. It would be highly irregular for a hospital to take someone off a ventilator and let them suffocate for 15 minutes without any sort of sedative medication to make that process comfortable and not harrowing.
3. I won't get into a left wing/right wing nut debate, but keep in mind that there are always 3 sides to every story...yours, mine and the truth. This publication has liberal leanings, and that is fine. But if they do not present the full story and all the facts, then they are doing their readers an disservice. And I feel the same way about publications that have conservative leanings too. The rules are not different for either side of the fence. That is why I try to read a multitude of publications, all with different "slants" because I think it gives a truer overall picture of the issues.

In any event, peace to this young lady's soul and to her family.

[DawnCt1]

Can this not be an opportunity to politically bash people? I don't care who didn't step up, be it republicans or democrats or aliens or one-toothed vermicious kenids. It doesn't matter if it was Pat Robertson that wasn't there to squint creepily and pray over her or Richard Gere wasn't there to gong bells over her head, the point is that it happened and it wasn't her choice.

What exactly was there to step up to? Do you think that hospitals have an unlimited supply of ICU beds and ventilators. How would you feel if a trauma injury patient, a father of 4 was turned away because the vent or the bed weren't available while a terminally ill woman with no hope of recovery occupied that bed? Is that a good use of resources?

[Disney Doll]

I'm wondering where were the rich liberal dems? Surely someone from Hollywood could have stepped up to the plate and helped pay for some of it.
Interesting point.

[Disney Doll]

The lady died because she was terminally ill with an incurable cancer for which there was no further treatment. Do you honestly believe, in your wildest imaginings, that if we had a single payer government plan, that she would have been kept alive even 10 days? Health care will be rationed. There are finite dollars for infinate problems. In most countries that have socialized medicine, dialysis is not available to diabetics after the age of 55. They are not eligible for organ transplants, and hip replacement surgery for an 80 year old could take a year. That means that an elderly person, who was otherwise vital could literally spend the rest of their life in a wheel chair or die waiting for something that we do within days. The dollars go to those who have the best chance of recovery. Most Medicare dollars are spent in the last 45 days of life. Believe me, under a single payer plan, it will be cut to the last ( fill in a much smaller number) days of life.
Another interesting point.

[Huggles]

As an 'outsider' I can appreciate arguments from both sides. It is the manner of the lady's passing that upsets me. I can only hope that the medical staff were kind enough to sedate the lady before she was removed from the ventilator.
Some time ago an anaesthetist fouled up and injected me with a muscle relaxant (in error) but didn't realise and made no attempt to put me on a ventilator. I was fully conscious and paralysed. My brain was telling my lungs to breathe but nothing was happening. As time went on ( it was forever) my brain was SCREAMING these messages to my body but it couldn't respond. I heard all the alarms go off and the panic ensuing before everything went quiet for me.
I hope this lady wasn't aware as she suffocated as it is the most appalling way to go.

[DawnCt1]

As an 'outsider' I can appreciate arguments from both sides. It is the manner of the lady's passing that upsets me. I can only hope that the medical staff were kind enough to sedate the lady before she was removed from the ventilator.
Some time ago an anaesthetist fouled up and injected me with a muscle relaxant (in error) but didn't realise and made no attempt to put me on a ventilator. I was fully conscious and paralysed. My brain was telling my lungs to breathe but nothing was happening. As time went on ( it was forever) my brain was SCREAMING these messages to my body but it couldn't respond. I heard all the alarms go off and the panic ensuing before everything went quiet for me.
I hope this lady wasn't aware as she suffocated as it is the most appalling way to go.
The standard of care, practiced everywhere, is sedation. We stood by DH's cousin's bed as he was passing. It was extremely peaceful.

[MzDiz]

What is your solution? Detailed as much as possible.

Uhhh, shucks, details is hard.

Let's see, solution - like, as in, if I were god, or something? I'd made sure assisted suicide was legal so that people could die when and how they wanted. That would free up enough money to at least buy a plane ticket from Africa so that woman could have had her dying wish.
In a real world sense? I'd do nothing but sit here and wallow in my opinions, since all I can do it write letters to Washington and wait for a few key politicians to die (with dignity of natural causes, of course) so we can get on with fixing the government.

(if you can't take that for what it is, tongue in cheek, I can't supply you with anymore "details" and you'll have to work it out on your own)

[Charade]

The lady died because she was terminally ill with an incurable cancer for which there was no further treatment. Do you honestly believe, in your wildest imaginings, that if we had a single payer government plan, that she would have been kept alive even 10 days? Health care will be rationed. There are finite dollars for infinate problems. In most countries that have socialized medicine, dialysis is not available to diabetics after the age of 55. They are not eligible for organ transplants, and hip replacement surgery for an 80 year old could take a year. That means that an elderly person, who was otherwise vital could literally spend the rest of their life in a wheel chair or die waiting for something that we do within days. The dollars go to those who have the best chance of recovery. Most Medicare dollars are spent in the last 45 days of life. Believe me, under a single payer plan, it will be cut to the last ( fill in a much smaller number) days of life.

I believe that the people who want a universal healthcare system want the quality and availability of care to be equal for everyone. We don't even have than now and look how much it costs. Adding 40+ million more people will only increase the cost (to the people who pay for the coverage because we know that not all will be able to pay their share of the costs) or reduce the quality/availability. I wonder which they prefer.

[Geoff_M]

Perhaps lost in the "Republicans-like-to-kill-poor-people-and-even-more-so-if-they-are-minorities" meme is this thought: In countries that have the sort of nationalized health schemes that critics of the US system often point to as the "solution", would such a terminal end-of-life patient receive indefinite high-end care?

[Chuck S]

I think both articles bring ho one point. Bush, while Gov of TX signed this bill, yet in the Schiavo case, which also was a medicaid* case, he was on the side of keeping her alive. In the TX case, the persons family was not allowed to make the final decision, by signing that bill Bush overrode the family's decision. Yet when Ms. Schiavo's legal husband wanted end her suffering, the President also wanted to override the decision.

There is no way to know where Bush stands on this subject...he flips flops by whichever way the policital wind is blowing that day. That is the problem, and it is affecting the lives of individuals, as well as the rights of ther families to make final decisions.

* From the Slate
Who's paying for her care?
Schiavo resides at a nonprofit hospice that has assumed part of the cost of her care. Medicaid pays for the rest. According to this AP story, keeping her alive costs about $80,000 per year, and at least $350,000 of the malpractice settlement awarded to Schiavo and her husband in 1992 has been spent on her care. Florida Medicaid normally offers hospice coverage for those with a life expectancy of no more than six months, but Schiavo has received assistance from the state for the last two years.

[DawnCt1]

Perhaps lost in the "Republicans-like-to-kill-poor-people-and-even-more-so-if-they-are-minorities" meme is this thought: In countries that have the sort of nationalized health schemes that critics of the US system often point to as the "solution", would such a terminal end-of-life patient receive indefinite high-end care?

We already know that in such countries those patients go right to hospice. Its comfortable and humane. We also know in those countries, that those people, who could continue to be productive on some level are denied organ transplants over a certain age, and dialysis. There are lots of Americans who visit their dialysis clinic three times a week and are a pleasure to their families, go to work, care for children, etc. They would be relegated to hospice to die of renal failure. That's not a pleasant death.

[ecr110]

What I find disheartening about this incident is the coverage of Terry Schiavo's final days. If it was 'murder' to take Schiavo off the ventilator, how is it different in this case? Because this woman couldn't pay her medical bills whereas Schiavo's family could?

This isn't a slam on conservatives or liberals or the health care system- but it just seems to me that if one terminal patient being taken off of a ventilator was murder, then this one should be murder and people who were upset about that case should be upset about this one.....

[TDC Nala]

I'm not really on either side politically. I'm not devoted to either party. But I don't see how this is Bush's fault. Laws are never able to cover every individuality. If someone can prove to me that they're sitting in the White House reading that article and saying "Great! That's exactly the sort of thing we want to see happening," then fine.

[Chuck S]

We already know that in such countries those patients go right to hospice. Its comfortable and humane. We also know in those countries, that those people, who could continue to be productive on some level are denied organ transplants over a certain age, and dialysis. There are lots of Americans who visit their dialysis clinic three times a week and are a pleasure to their families, go to work, care for children, etc. They would be relegated to hospice to die of renal failure. That's not a pleasant death.

WHAT? Canada relegates relatively healthy and productive members of society that may be needing dialysis to hospice to die? Are you sure, about that Dawn?

[Puffy2]

People can claim all they want that "this isn't partisan" , just economics, blah, blah, blah, but the fact is W's state - Texas - with laws created while he was in office allowed this to happen AND , not only that, his hypocritical administration STILL had the balls to use Terri S. for political gain.

Culure of Life? BS. Culture of stuff our pockets with as much cash as possible and manipulate the Bible thumpers into thinking that we support their agenda is more like it.

[DawnCt1]

I think both articles bring ho one point. Bush, while Gov of TX signed this bill, yet in the Schiavo case, which also was a medicaid* case, he was on the side of keeping her alive. In the TX case, the persons family was not allowed to make the final decision, by signing that bill Bush overrode the family's decision. Yet when Ms. Schiavo's legal husband wanted end her suffering, the President also wanted to override the decision.

.
There are a number of things which set this case apart from the Schiavo case.
Terry Schiavo was not terminally ill. She required tube feeding to sustain her life. There is nothing "high tech" about that. Terry Schiavo was not terminally ill. She did not have a progressive, agressive illness that would kill her.
Her family was willing to pay for her to remain alive and in the nursing home. She was not unlike hundreds of patients acrossed the country living with severe brain damage. The husband also seemed to have "divided" interests, having pursued another life with another "wife".

[Geoff_M]

If it was 'murder' to take Schiavo off the ventilator, how is it different in this case?For starters it wasn't that simple. Those against "pulling the plug" on Ms. Schiavo felt (though mis-guidedly):
1) She wasn't in a persistent vegatative state.
2) She was periodically responsive and might improve with time.
3) Her husband perhaps was trying to cover up abuse committed against her.

In order to be analagous, the family of the patient in the OP's link would have to believe that the woman didn't have end-stage cancer and/or was likely "cureable".

[DawnCt1]

WHAT? Canada relegates relatively healthy and productive members of society that may be needing dialysis to hospice to die? Are you sure, about that Dawn?

Did I mention Canada?? Furthermore, people who require dialysis could hardly be called "relatively healthy". They have a multitude of problems.

[Chuck S]

There are a number of things which set this case apart from the Schiavo case.
Terry Schiavo was not terminally ill. She required tube feeding to sustain her life. There is nothing "high tech" about that. Terry Schiavo was not terminally ill. She did not have a progressive, agressive illness that would kill her.
Her family was willing to pay for her to remain alive and in the nursing home. She was not unlike hundreds of patients acrossed the country living with severe brain damage. The husband also seemed to have "divided" interests, having pursued another life with another "wife".

But there are other differences, too. The Texas patient was CONSCIOUS, this patient KNEW her family had no choice but to let her die at the time of the state's choosing. Terri Schiavo was in a vegetative state, unable to communicate. Ms. Schiavo had no hope or any recovery, she was in effect, brain dead. She may not have been "terminal", and could have survived for several years, but she was not "living."

[Chuck S]

Did I mention Canada?? Furthermore, people who require dialysis could hardly be called "relatively healthy". They have a multitude of problems.

Your post was in reply to Geoff's post ...countries that have the sort of nationalized health schemes that critics of the US system often point to as the "solution", would such a terminal end-of-life patient receive indefinite high-end care?

Most Americans point to Canade for an example of a nationalized health system. It is certainly to most applicable, as Canada is not a "third world" country, and is on the same continent as the US. Do you honestly think a nationalized system in the US would be more like Canada's or that of a poorer nation?

[DawnCt1]

But there are other differnces, too. The Texas patient was CONSCIOUS, this patient KNEW her family had no choice but to let her die at the time of the state's choosing. Terri Schiavo was in a vegetative state, unable to communicate. Ms. Schiavo had no hope or any recovery, she was in effect, brain dead. She may not have been "terminal", and could have survived for several years, but she was not "living."


Terri Schiavo could have survived for many more years. DH's cousin was conscious too and knew that he was being removed from a ventilator. That doesn't change the fact that it was the best course of treatment for him and prevented weeks of needless suffering.

[Chuck S]

Terri Schiavo could have survived for many more years. DH's cousin was conscious too and knew that he was being removed from a ventilator. That doesn't change the fact that it was the best course of treatment for him and prevented weeks of needless suffering.

But it was, ultimately, the decision of the family of your DHs cousin, was it not? In the case of the Tx patient it was the states decision.

[DawnCt1]

Your post was in reply to Geoff's post

Most Americans point to Canade for an example of a nationalized health system. It is certainly to most applicable, as Canada is not a "third world" country, and is on the same continent as the US. Do you honestly think a nationalized system in the US would be more like Canada's or that of a poorer nation?

I think the US would certainly make the effort to maintain the same level of care we have now but the reality is, there are finite dollars and rationing choices would have to be made. That is a reality. In Canada there is absolutely a wait for elective surgery. The difference is, is what Americans think of as "elective" and what is considered "elective" in Canada. A hip replacement in some provinces is a one year wait. I have taken Caribbean cruises where the medical staff is primarily from Canada. They leave their practices for a month or two to "moonlight" on cruise lines. This serves two purposes. It supplements their income and prevents them for working for "free" when the province runs out of money to pay them. They therefore avoid "ill will" in turning patients away for whom they will not be reimbursed by simply "not being there". I have been told this by Canadian physicians on cruise ships. You will rarely find an American physician on a cruise ship because they cannot afford to leave thier practices for that length of time without a serious impact to their patients and their practice.

[DawnCt1]

But it was, ultimately, the decision of the family of your DHs cousin, was it not? In the case of the Tx patient it was the states decision.
But to maintain a terminally ill patient on life support is not a normal standard of care so nothing was done that was not within an appropriate standard of care for the situation.

[Chuck S]

But to maintain a terminally ill patient on life support is not a normal standard of care so nothing was done that was not within an appropriate standard of care for the situation.

To discontinue life support without the consent of the family is also not a "normal standard of care" in the US, is it? Your DHs family gave permisson, did they not? The family of the patient in TX was not allowed to make the same free choice.

[Charade]

But it was, ultimately, the decision of the family of your DHs cousin, was it not? In the case of the Tx patient it was the states decision.

No, it was the hospital's decision.

[Chuck S]

I think the US would certainly make the effort to maintain the same level of care we have now but the reality is, there are finite dollars and rationing choices would have to be made. That is a reality. In Canada there is absolutely a wait for elective surgery. The difference is, is what Americans think of as "elective" and what is considered "elective" in Canada. A hip replacement in some provinces is a one year wait. I have taken Caribbean cruises where the medical staff is primarily from Canada. They leave their practices for a month or two to "moonlight" on cruise lines. This serves two purposes. It supplements their income and prevents them for working for "free" when the province runs out of money to pay them. They therefore avoid "ill will" in turning patients away for whom they will not be reimbursed by simply "not being there". I have been told this by Canadian physicians on cruise ships. You will rarely find an American physician on a cruise ship because they cannot afford to leave thier practices for that length of time without a serious impact to their patients and their practice.

Average income for a medical doctor in Canada is $140,000. Certainly a living wage.

[Chuck S]

No, it was the hospital's decision. A decision that they could not have made without using the state law that permitted it, signed by Gov. Bush.

[Puffy2]

You will rarely find an American physician on a cruise ship because they cannot afford to leave thier practices for that length of time without a serious impact to their patients and their practice.

What color is the sky in your world?

American physicans generally travel extensively - yes, on cruises too. Being a nurse and having worked with many, many physicians I know this to be a fact. They have wonderful vacactions - foreign, exotic, leisurely. Who treats their patients? The other docs in the practice, docs who trade call with other practices, and in one case NO ONE AT ALL (his patients were told to go to the ER if they had a problem).

[chobie]

For starters it wasn't that simple. Those against "pulling the plug" on Ms. Schiavo felt (though mis-guidedly):
1) She wasn't in a persistent vegatative state.
2) She was periodically responsive and might improve with time.
3) Her husband perhaps was trying to cover up abuse committed against her.
In order to be analagous, the family of the patient in the OP's link would have to believe that the woman didn't have end-stage cancer and/or was likely "cureable".

How did that autopsy turn out?

[Charade]

People can claim all they want that "this isn't partisan" , just economics, blah, blah, blah, but the fact is W's state - Texas - with laws created while he was in office allowed this to happen AND , not only that, his hypocritical administration STILL had the balls to use Terri S. for political gain.

Culure of Life? BS. Culture of stuff our pockets with as much cash as possible and manipulate the Bible thumpers into thinking that we support their agenda is more like it.


So how much of your earnings are you willing to contribute to pay for universal healthcare so this won't ever happen again? 5 percent? 10 percent? 20 percent? Compare that to what you pay now and then think of the coverage you'll get if a universal healthcare system were in place.

[Charade]

How did that autopsy turn out?

Hmm.. perhaps you missed he said misguidedly.

[damo]

But there are also a lot of services that are faster here in Ontario than what I have read here on the Disboards that some people experience. An example: On December 17th my teacher friend had her annual mammogram which had been issued by her doctor the day before as routine. The next day she got a call that there was a suspicious area. On December 20 she had a needle bioposy which confirmed a 3mm cancerous tumour. On December 23 she had it surgically removed.

Another example is my MIL having heart valve replacement within a few weeks of it being scheduled. My father had skin cancer removed from his nose within a week of it being scheduled. My friend's neighbour whose 3 year old was picked up at her house by an ambulance in the middle of the night to transfer her to Sick Kids hospital when her blood tests came in from her appointment that day and showed that she had leukemia. The list goes on.

The system isn't as bad as some people want to think. It is far from perfect but it never will be.

[Chuck S]

So how much of your earnings are you willing to contribute to pay for universal healthcare so this won't ever happen again? 5 percent? 10 percent? 20 percent? Compare that to what you pay now and then think of the coverage you'll get if a universal healthcare system were in place.

Hmmm...maybe about as much as we're paying to "free" Iraq. If the budget can handle that, it should be able to handle health care.

[chobie]

So how much of your earnings are you willing to contribute to pay for universal healthcare so this won't ever happen again? 5 percent? 10 percent? 20 percent? Compare that to what you pay now and then think of the coverage you'll get if a universal healthcare system were in place.


My family pays 20% of our take home for our share of the premiums for an HMO. I would pay that much for a universal healthcare system.

[DawnCt1]

How did that autopsy turn out?

That many years out from the initial injury/incident it would be impossible to determine if he had a hand in her situation.

[chobie]

That many years out from the initial injury/incident it would be impossible to determine if he had a hand in her situation.

In other words, he was innocent.

[Charade]

What color is the sky in your world?

American physicans generally travel extensively - yes, on cruises too. Being a nurse and having worked with many, many physicians I know this to be a fact. They have wonderful vacactions - foreign, exotic, leisurely. Who treats their patients? The other docs in the practice, docs who trade call with other practices, and in one case NO ONE AT ALL (his patients were told to go to the ER if they had a problem).

Maybe the government should force them to put that excess money back into the system so more people could have (or have better) healthcare.

[dennis99ss]

Its ok to kill sopmeone because they do not have money. It is ok to play GOD, with this lady's life. But, it was not ok to play GOD with T. Schiavo's life? It is OK to play GOD as executioner, but not ok for abortions?

What hypocrits you are. Dawn sits their and says that this case is different, that this lady was going to die. Until you are appointed supreme being, you don't know that. You don't know if dh cousin was going to die. You were told that, but, you don't know it.

What gives you, or anybody, the right to take a life. You are all in favor of letting this lady die, but not Schiavo. Believe what you want, killing is killing, and if you support one, you should support the other. Are you outraged at the doctors in New Orleans, who have allegations of this same thing made against them? Are you outraged at every execution?

To those who try to make up a difference between these two ladies, you are so full of it. On one hand, you have a lady who is still alive, conscious, and is aware of her surroundings. On the other, you have a lady who may be brain dead. So, the brain dead white lady with some $$ deserves to live, while the conscious, terminal ill lady, who is poor and black, deserves to die, because you pull the plug, not becaue the life ended naturally.

[Aidensmom]

I think it is very sad this woman had terminal cancer. I think it is very sad that she was unable to get her dying wish. But I think it is the article that is trying to turn in into a political, and even racial issue, when it is not.

I really fail to see how this is a political issue. The issues of health insurance affordability run a lot deeper than some Republicans sitting around deciding who they want to have insurance. And it is not usually the POOR that are uninsured - they are eligible for medicaid, which pays for a heck of a lot of stuff that my very costly insurance through my employer does not provide for. Many uninsured people are working people who are not offered insurance through their employer, or cannot afford the plan they are offered, (or they are self-employed), and they cannot afford an individual policy. The problem at that point is that the insurance companies charge a lot for insurance. They charge a lot because they pay out a lot, many times for unneccessary things. For example, I can only imagine how much insurance companies pay every year for antibiotics that are prescribed for colds or other viruses, when antibiotics do nothing to help.

I am not a minority, and I am not poor, but if I was on life support for a terminal disease of which I was no doubt going to die of anyway, my family would not be able to afford to keep me on it indefinately. And I would not want them to. Sure it would be great to be able to see some people before I died, or to go somewhere, or experience certain things. But in my opinion, it would be wrong of me to expect someone else to foot the bill for it. The desire to die in her mother's arms is really touching, and I wish she had been able to do so, but sometimes we just do not get everything that we want.

[Charade]

My family pays 20% of our take home for our share of the premiums for an HMO. I would pay that much for a universal healthcare system.

Key words: "your share". What if it cost 30 percent to get UHC? 40 percent? What if the cost was more and the coverage was less? We know that a lot of the people don't have health care because they can't afford it. If you add 40+ million more people to the system who can't afford to pay the same "share" as you, it's gonna cost you more.

[froglady]

Maybe the government should force them to put that excess money back into the system so more people could have (or have better) healthcare.


Oh, so DH who had to pay for 4 years of college, 4 years of medical school, worked minimum wage for 5 more years, puts in 60 hour weeks, plus being on call, which sometimes includes being in the OR all night, and already pays more than 1/3 of his income in taxes should now be FORCED to pay any "excess" money for other people's health care? (Nevermind the volunteer time he gives to provide care for those who can't pay, or choose not to.)

Only when all of the lawyers, actors, athletes, entertainers, models, CEOs and celebrities who make "excess" money are also forced to pay, also.

[Charade]

Its ok to kill sopmeone because they do not have money. It is ok to play GOD, with this lady's life. But, it was not ok to play GOD with T. Schiavo's life? It is OK to play GOD as executioner, but not ok for abortions?

What hypocrits you are. Dawn sits their and says that this case is different, that this lady was going to die. Until you are appointed supreme being, you don't know that. You don't know if dh cousin was going to die. You were told that, but, you don't know it.

What gives you, or anybody, the right to take a life. You are all in favor of letting this lady die, but not Schiavo. Believe what you want, killing is killing, and if you support one, you should support the other. Are you outraged at the doctors in New Orleans, who have allegations of this same thing made against them? Are you outraged at every execution?

To those who try to make up a difference between these two ladies, you are so full of it. On one hand, you have a lady who is still alive, conscious, and is aware of her surroundings. On the other, you have a lady who may be brain dead. So, the brain dead white lady with some $$ deserves to live, while the conscious, terminal ill lady, who is poor and black, deserves to die, because you pull the plug, not becaue the life ended naturally.

Whoa! Who peed in your coffee???

Her life *did* end naturally. Once the LIFE SUPPORT system was removed.

[mickeyfan2]

I can't believe that this is getting more airtime on DIS than the 13 miners in WV.

BTW in 2005 of all the money DH and I spend over 15% of it was on LTC and health insurance so we are more in control of our medical care. Yes there still are insurance companies to please, but if that was DH I would have the money to move him to a private nursing home (or our own home) to make the end of his life comfortable. I would have loved to spend that 15% somewhere else, but we put more value on health insurance than on paying our mortgage.

Why should I pay for her care and my care. Does seem a little unfair. I do believe in basic care being taken care of by the state, but this was asking too much of the state. Her family could have paid the extra bills.

[Charade]

Oh, so DH who had to pay for 4 years of college, 4 years of medical school, worked minimum wage for 5 more years, puts in 60 hour weeks, plus being on call, which sometimes includes being in the OR all night, and already pays more than 1/3 of his income in taxes should now be FORCED to pay any "excess" money for other people's health care? (Nevermind the volunteer time he gives to provide care for those who can't pay, or choose not to.)

Only when all of the lawyers, actors, athletes, entertainers, models, CEOs and celebrities who make "excess" money are also forced to pay, also.


Sorry, but I'm not a liberal nor do I play one on TV. I don't care how much money someone makes (unless they steal it). And I certainly don't except them to put it back in to the system in the form of extra taxes or penalties. If they want to be greedy, so be it. Karma will get them. Hopefully.

[mickeyfan2]

Its ok to kill sopmeone because they do not have money. It is ok to play GOD, with this lady's life. But, it was not ok to play GOD with T. Schiavo's life? It is OK to play GOD as executioner, but not ok for abortions?

What hypocrits you are.
I would not kill somebody just because they don't have money, but I will not keep somebody who is terminal on life support at my expense. Her family could have paid the mother to come and to keep her alive until she arrived. Why should I? I for one backed the husband in the TS case. I have never had an abortion and never would. So where am I a hypocrit?

[Galahad]

What color is the sky in your world?

American physicans generally travel extensively - yes, on cruises too. Being a nurse and having worked with many, many physicians I know this to be a fact. They have wonderful vacactions - foreign, exotic, leisurely. Who treats their patients? The other docs in the practice, docs who trade call with other practices, and in one case NO ONE AT ALL (his patients were told to go to the ER if they had a problem).

DW is almost never away from her practice. She's one of only 7 physicians in the state in her specialty. It really is quite common for physicians to take surprisingly few vacations.

The trend that was undeniable for years - of Canadian physicians coming to American to work for a number of reasons for various lengths of time - has pretty much reversed itself according to a recent report I read in the AMA newspaper (not JAMA, but their newspaper). FWIW, I think there are countless problems with the Canadian healthcare model and I pray we NEVER adopt it, but their physicians are nurses are every bit right on the leading edge along with U.S providers.

[mickeyfan2]

Key words: "your share". What if it cost 30 percent to get UHC? 40 percent? What if the cost was more and the coverage was less? We know that a lot of the people don't have health care because they can't afford it. If you add 40+ million more people to the system who can't afford to pay the same "share" as you, it's gonna cost you more.
ITA. BTW why is the Chancellor of Germany vowing to reform the social system and lower taxes if this is the right way to got. Other socialistic countries are going more toward our way, but we want to go toward theirs?
I suspect that you would pay atleast 50% more and have worse care too.

[Galahad]

Sorry, but I'm not a liberal nor do I play one on TV. I don't care how much money someone makes (unless they steal it). And I certainly don't except them to put it back in to the system in the form of extra taxes or penalties. If they want to be greedy, so be it. Karma will get them. Hopefully.

Charade, this is also VERY common: 23% of DW's practice is "charity". She gets no payment for it of ANY kind. The average in her specialty is 20%. Whether somebody can pay does not affect they way they are treated and it would unethical for it to do so. MOST physicians do a great deal to "give back".

BTW, if our tax burden were only 1/3, I'd be throwing a party!

[Geoff_M]

Instead of rehashing the whole Schiavo episode... again... for the ump-teenth time, I'd like to point out (as I attempted to before) that, like it or not, the type of situation described in the opening post of this thread will be part of our "system" regardless of whether or not we stick with the current "system" or opt for a "universal" health system. At some point, when cost/benefit ratios cross-over and lean too far in one direction, people will be told that treatment is no longer a option (desired or not) and it's time to start thinking about dying. Whether the bad news comes from a hospital ethics committee, national health service guidelines, or an insurance company... the effect is the same. We can argue about the care offered and actions taken once the decision has been reached, but the need to rationalize health expenditures is not a "Texas", "Republican", or "American" thing.

[RitaZ.]

Surely someone from Hollywood could have stepped up to the plate and helped pay for some of it.

You know, the term Limousine Liberal comes to mind. :teeth: ;)

[CapeCodTenor]

You know, the term Limousine Liberal comes to mind. :teeth: ;)
:rotfl: :rotfl2:

[Charade]

Charade, this is also VERY common: 23% of DW's practice is "charity". She gets no payment for it of ANY kind. The average in her specialty is 20%. Whether somebody can pay does not affect they way they are treated and it would unethical for it to do so. MOST physicians do a great deal to "give back".

BTW, if our tax burden were only 1/3, I'd be throwing a party!

But she is doing it voluntarily and from a good heart. That's the difference.

[Galahad]

But she is doing it voluntarily and from a good heart. That's the difference.


Granted, but my point (which as usual was probably superfluous) is that MOST physicians do the very same thing from a good heart. I can understand being dubious of that. Being an OB's husband, I probably have a bit of an anti-attorney bias that is more than is warranted, for example. But most people that make a lot of money like doctors, in my experience, are not really greedy at all.

[Charade]

Instead of rehashing the whole Schiavo episode... again... for the ump-teenth time, I'd like to point out (as I attempted to before) that, like it or not, the type of situation described in the opening post of this thread will be part of our "system" regardless of whether or not we stick with the current "system" or opt for a "universal" health system. At some point, when cost/benefit ratios cross-over and lean too far in one direction, people will be told that treatment is no longer a option (desired or not) and it's time to start thinking about dying. Whether the bad news comes from a hospital ethics committee, national health service guidelines, or an insurance company... the effect is the same. We can argue about the care offered and actions taken once the decision has been reached, but the need to relationalize health expenditures is not a "Texas", "Republican", or "American" thing.

I agree.

But the final decision should to die should be up to the individual (or their family/guardian) regardless of cost/suffering and the "system" should just absorb it. That's my read from some of the people here who disagree with the Texas law allowing (not requiring) hospitals to end life support for terminally ill patients.

[Galahad]

At some point, when cost/benefit ratios cross-over and lean too far in one direction, people will be told that treatment is no longer a option (desired or not) and it's time to start thinking about dying.

I don't believe we are even close to making that cultural leap in the way we view healthcare. One thing that makes U.S. healthcare so expensive as well as cutting edge is our cultural attitude towards is not so sterile and clinical as to simply look at the dollars and cents. IMO, we will have to come to that societally in a way that will still take some time.

[dennis99ss]

The problem is that the law allows a difference of action dependiong on subjective factors, such as insurance. It is up to the hospital to decide. If there is insurance, the hospital can keep her alive. If there is not, they can pull the plug. It is subjective, and therefore open to corruption.

[mickeyfan2]

It is subjective, and therefore open to corruption.
Explain. How was the hospital corrupt in this decision?

[Planogirl]

I keep thinking of mercy killing and assisted suicide here. Isn't removing patients from ventilation for their own good and to avoid prolonging their suffering, almost a form of assisted suicide? Funny but there's a controversial doctor in prison now for doing almost the exact same thing as this hospital.

[Galahad]

I keep thinking of mercy killing and assisted suicide here. Isn't removing patients from ventilation for their own good and to avoid prolonging their suffering, almost a form of assisted suicide? Funny but there's a controversial doctor in prison now for doing almost the exact same thing as this hospital.

Not to mention "Logan's Run" (great jumpsuits though).

[Geoff_M]

I don't believe we are even close to making that cultural leap in the way we view healthcare.Perhaps I was a bit terse in the way I phrased that. I agree that this is the general attitude now, but I think a move in that direction is inevitable. As the pressure to hold down health care expenditures will only continue to grow with time, expenditure rationalization will only continue to play a larger point in the healthcare picture as we go on. It's not going to matter whether it's the current system or a "single payer" system.

[sodaseller]

Instead of rehashing the whole Schiavo episode... again... for the ump-teenth time, I'd like to point out (as I attempted to before) that, like it or not, the type of situation described in the opening post of this thread will be part of our "system" regardless of whether or not we stick with the current "system" or opt for a "universal" health system. At some point, when cost/benefit ratios cross-over and lean too far in one direction, people will be told that treatment is no longer a option (desired or not) and it's time to start thinking about dying. Whether the bad news comes from a hospital ethics committee, national health service guidelines, or an insurance company... the effect is the same. We can argue about the care offered and actions taken once the decision has been reached, but the need to rationalize health expenditures is not a "Texas", "Republican", or "American" thing.

What you speak is true. But to suggest that any meaningful end of life issue debate can occur without the shadow of Schiavo looming thereover is akin to the proverbial "Other than that, how was the theatre, Mrs. Lincoln". That sordid episode will not be soon forgotten by it's victims, the largest of which was Truth itself.

You raise many of the complex issues that will have to be wrestled with in reaching the humanest policy available. All should understand in advance that it will be impossible to deliver the maximum available health care to all, and that there is no perfect justice. All good, valid points. And all of those "extenuating circumstances" may be present here - it may well be possible that the actual facts do not lend themselves to easy Manicheean dualism.

But the Schiavo episode saw one party's leaders uniformly appropriate the mantle of "life" and label their opponents as the party of "death" with the largest possible pulpit, so it should come as no surprise that those so labeled will take every opportunity to point out how demagogic and counterproductive that was.

And while I do not dispute the Schiavo family's professed beliefs regarding their daughter's condition and their son-in-law's perfidy, I do dispute that any of those beliefs were reasonable, even with what was known before the autopsy.

[cardaway]

While the whole issue was political before, it's certainly more so after Schiavo, and only one party is responsible for that mess.

[DawnCt1]

Average income for a medical doctor in Canada is $140,000. Certainly a living wage.

But it doesn't mean that they don't wish to avail themselves of an opportunity to make more. There is nothing wrong with that. When the province runs out of money at the end of the fiscal year, they find it more socially acceptable to "not be home" than to refuse to see patients for free.

[Geoff_M]

But the Schiavo episode saw one party's leaders uniformly appropriate the mantle of "life" and label their opponents as the party of "death" with the largest possible pulpit, so it chould come as no surprise that those so labeled will take every opportunity to point out how demagogic and counterproductive that was.And overuse the analogy and it starts to ring as hollow as claiming every looming military conflict will be "another Vietnam".

[DawnCt1]

What color is the sky in your world?

American physicans generally travel extensively - yes, on cruises too. Being a nurse and having worked with many, many physicians I know this to be a fact. They have wonderful vacactions - foreign, exotic, leisurely. Who treats their patients? The other docs in the practice, docs who trade call with other practices, and in one case NO ONE AT ALL (his patients were told to go to the ER if they had a problem).

I am NOT talking about vacationing on a cruise ship, I am talking about taking a moonlighting job to work on a cruise ship as the ship's doctor. Those contracts are a minimum of 30 to 60 days. DH gets 4 weeks vacation per year, we usually only take a week at a time and not the entire four weeks. Every other year we go to Hawaii for 18 days. When he leaves for extended periods of time, the hospital has to hire a locum tenens (sp) physician to replace him.

[sha_lyn]

A decision that they could not have made without using the state law that permitted it, signed by Gov. Bush.


It wouldn't have made it to his desk if the state house had not passed it. I absolutely hate the left wing tactic of trying to ignore that bills must be voted on before a govenor or president signs them.

[Chuck S]

Ummm...that is why the governors and presidents have the "Golden Power of Veto".

[sha_lyn]

you do realize that a veto can be overturned by the US congress or a state house. A president or governors power is kept in check.

[Chuck S]

But it doesn't mean that they don't wish to avail themselves of an opportunity to make more. There is nothing wrong with that. When the province runs out of money at the end of the fiscal year, they find it more socially acceptable to "not be home" than to refuse to see patients for free.

Or perhaps they wanted a double paid vacation? And of course there is nothing wrong with them "moonlighting" on a cruise ship in order to achieve it...but to imply they have to in order to provide for themselves is not true. Perhaps they simply found a "cheap" way to cruise.

[bcvillastwo]

"LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" In my view the operative word here is "pursuit". Where I come from the meaning of pursuit does not equal a guarantee of happiness. Rather it means "The act of following with a view to overtake; a following with haste, either for sport or in hostility; as the pursuit of game; the pursuit of an enemy." The idea is to run after, to seek, to expend some energy while attempting to attain something (in this case happiness). Happiness is not a guarantee.

[DawnCt1]

Or perhaps they wanted a double paid vacation? And of course there is nothing wrong with them "moonlighting" on a cruise ship in order to achieve it...but to imply they have to in order to provide for themselves is not true. Perhaps they simply found a "cheap" way to cruise.

No, Once the province runs out of money, they are not paid for patient visits until that fiscal year ends. One has the choice of seeing patients and not being paid, or finding a job elsewhere. A typical ship physician sees more than 60 pts per day. That is a tremendous load. One particular cruiseline says that a death or two per cruise is not unusual. A cruise line that attracts a lot of elderly passengers has to deal with that scenario. Typically, a boarderline cardiac pt who over indulges, develops CHS and dies. In addition to that, they are responsible of the health and injuries of the crew, many of whom come from countries where they didn't have good preventive care in the first place. If a doc wanted a cruise, he could easily book an inside guarantee cabin.

[sodaseller]

It wouldn't have made it to his desk if the state house had not passed it. I absolutely hate the left wing tactic of trying to ignore that bills must be voted on before a govenor or president signs them.
Too funny. Then Gov. Bush disingenuously claimed credit for a patients' bill of rights' bill that passed over his pocket veto, and now it is argued that it is somehow wrong to hold an elected executive politically accountable for a bill that s/he actually signed! Too Bizaare

[HOGFAN]

George Bush will be judged? Guess what, we all will. The Constitution does not guarantee healthcare. And hospitals are a BUSINESS, just like any other business. They have to make money to stay open.

[cardaway]

Or perhaps they wanted a double paid vacation? And of course there is nothing wrong with them "moonlighting" on a cruise ship in order to achieve it...but to imply they have to in order to provide for themselves is not true. Perhaps they simply found a "cheap" way to cruise.

I thought it was to get all those loose women that the ships purser didn't get to first.

[Chuck S]

I thought it was to get all those loose women that the ships purser didn't get to first.

:rotfl2:
All together now..The Love Boat soon will be making another run..

[Chuck S]

No, Once the province runs out of money, they are not paid for patient visits until that fiscal year ends. One has the choice of seeing patients and not being paid, or finding a job elsewhere. A typical ship physician sees more than 60 pts per day. That is a tremendous load. One particular cruiseline says that a death or two per cruise is not unusual. A cruise line that attracts a lot of elderly passengers has to deal with that scenario. Typically, a boarderline cardiac pt who over indulges, develops CHS and dies. In addition to that, they are responsible of the health and injuries of the crew, many of whom come from countries where they didn't have good preventive care in the first place. If a doc wanted a cruise, he could easily book an inside guarantee cabin.

It sure seems that if the average Doc in Canada makes $140,000 a year, they could well afford to take an occasional cruise. It may be true they are conveniently "out of town" to not treat patients...it does not mean they MUST take a cruise ship position...a vacation would fill the same purpose. Where (I hear you asking Dawn) did I get the $140,000 figure? From this article:
http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/02022001/column.htm

[damo]

Dawn, what province are you speaking of, I'd love to see the statistics? I've never heard of a province running out of money and not paying the doctors and I've lived in Canada my entire life. At my clinic there are just as many doctors at the end of the fiscal year as at the beginning. All the doctors I know live very comfortable lives. I've also read that a cruise ship doctor earns about $5000 - $7000 US a month. If they are seeing 60 patients a day, it seems hardly worth it.

[DawnCt1]

Dawn, what province are you speaking of, I'd love to see the statistics? I've never heard of a province running out of money and not paying the doctors and I've lived in Canada my entire life. At my clinic there are just as many doctors at the end of the fiscal year as at the beginning. All the doctors I know live very comfortable lives. I've also read that a cruise ship doctor earns about $5000 - $7000 US a month. If they are seeing 60 patients a day, it seems hardly worth it.

I couldn't tell you which provinces. The physicians I spoke with made it sound like a common problem that was through out Canada. Perhaps they block their time off to accommodate that so all facilities are covered. I agree, the patient load on cruise ships hardly seem worth it. The hours are set but they of course see patients after hours for emergencies.

[DawnCt1]

It sure seems that if the average Doc in Canada makes $140,000 a year, they could well afford to take an occasional cruise. It may be true they are conveniently "out of town" to not treat patients...it does not mean they MUST take a cruise ship position...a vacation would fill the same purpose. Where (I hear you asking Dawn) did I get the $140,000 figure? From this article:
http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/02022001/column.htm


If they want to supplement their income, a cruise meets that need. There seems to be a lot of Canadian doctors who fill those positions. When I asked them why, that is what I was told. I have cruised with Canadians who have made a point to tell me how expensive their cruises were because they have to pay in American dollars. BTW, I don't happen to think that $140,000 is a lot of money given the time invested in college, medical school and post graduate training, not to mention the hours spent actually working. It far exceeds 40 hours per week

[Chuck S]

If they want to supplement their income, a cruise meets that need. There seems to be a lot of Canadian doctors who fill those positions. When I asked them why, that is what I was told. I have cruised with Canadians who have made a point to tell me how expensive their cruises were because they have to pay in American dollars.

Again, I have no problem with them supplementing their income. But don't imply that it is something the MUST do.

[damo]

I couldn't tell you which provinces. The physicians I spoke with made it sound like a common problem that was through out Canada. Perhaps they block their time off to accommodate that so all facilities are covered. I agree, the patient load on cruise ships hardly seem worth it. The hours are set but they of course see patients after hours for emergencies.

I've never even heard of it happening, let alone be a problem.

[DawnCt1]

Again, I have no problem with them supplementing their income. But don't imply that it is something the MUST do.


No one "must" go out an make more money but obviously, enough feel they want to and need to because they are finding jobs outside of Canada.

[Sparx]

This woman died because she couldn't afford the one thing that kept her alive. life support. She didn't have insurance. We all agree on that much. I don't care weather you agree or disagree with what happened.

Health care is not promised to us in the constitution. Should it be? well I don't know. Food isn't promised to us. Shelter isn't promised to us. money isn't promised to us. 10 rights are promised to us in the bill of rights. none of these show up anywhere in it.

This poor woman wasn't going to get any better. She had ten days to live, on life support. The hospital offered to try to get her mother to her, but the family declined. Does that make it right? no. Nothing will make it right because there is a family without a daughter out there. it'll never be right.

Fifteen minutes is a long time to die in. First your breath slows. then when it is cut off your heart slows down and stops and your vital organs shut down and your brain sufficates from blood and oxygen loss. you would probably be blind towards the end of it. it would be painful.

Any side of this there will be someone disagreeing. so I'm not gonna post a side. I'm not going to make anyone disagree. I'm posting on what we all agree on. This is sad, and it probably could have been prevented. I'm not preposing another way to handel things like this, and I'm not posting anti bush slander.

None of us can make a judgement on this unless we have been in teh hospitals or the family's shoes. and hopefully none of us will ever have to.

I really wish my best to teh family, and I am truely sorry that this happened. its never easy to lose someone you love.

[DawnCt1]

This woman died because she couldn't afford the one thing that kept her alive. life support. She didn't have insurance. We all agree on that much. I don't care weather you agree or disagree with what happened.


Fifteen minutes is a long time to die in. First your breath slows. then when it is cut off your heart slows down and stops and your vital organs shut down and your brain sufficates from blood and oxygen loss. you would probably be blind towards the end of it. it would be painful.

.

Sparx, the sad part is, her family would have lost her no matter what. She was terminally ill with no hope of recovery. She could have easily been removed from life support even if she had the best insurance in the world. There is a point in care where it is inappropriate to continue ventilating someone who is terminally ill. With regard to the description of her death. Pts are removed from life support and ventilators every day in every hospital. They are sedated heavily, often with morphine and other similar drugs, as well as sedatives. If she was blind by the end, she wouldn't have been aware, she would have been in a very deep sleep.

[Disney Doll]

Perhaps lost in the "Republicans-like-to-kill-poor-people-and-even-more-so-if-they-are-minorities" meme is this thought: In countries that have the sort of nationalized health schemes that critics of the US system often point to as the "solution", would such a terminal end-of-life patient receive indefinite high-end care?
No she would not.

[Disney Doll]

I always read these end of life debates with great interest. It is amazing the spectrum of opinions, and information or misinformation we DISers have.

I will speak of my personal experiences.

In general, we are able to tell when someone is dying. All of the information we are able to accumulate form the high level testing we are able to do gives us this ability. Do we know exactly when? Well, obviously not. Are there people who will defy the odds? Of course. But in general, someone with terminal cancer is going to die, and you can usually pin it to within weeks, if not days.

Healthcare is a balancing act. Hospital care is a bigger balancing act. Let's look at it from a different perspective.

Your father is having a heart attack. You call 911, the ambulance comes and he's off to the hospital. He gets to the hospital, and they are not accepting any more amubulances because there is simply no more room for patients in the ER or to be distributed throughout the hospital. The place is full, and yes, hospitals do have a census limit. Some of the reason that your father may not get into the first hospital he gets to while having his heart attack is because there are "X" number of terminally ill patients on ventilators taking up ICU bed space.

Still think that person who we know is dying is more important?

OK. The ambulance takes Dad to the next hospital 10 miles away, where they have room. Dad is seen in the ER, treated as appropriate. Dad needs to be in ICU, but wait...there are no beds because there are 3 terminally ill patients in there on ventilators. So Dad gets to sleep in the ER for 48 hours, on a gurney, in a cubicle the size of a decent walk-in closet, while chaos reigns all around him, because after all, ERs are always chaotic. This, of course, doesn't help his cardiac issues...all that stress etc, but well...we have no choice there are no beds, because many of them are being taken up by terminally ill patients receiving futile medical treatment.

Still think that person who we know is dying is more important??

OK, so 48 hours after admission Dad gets a bed in ICU. Of course, there are 3 terminally ill patients who require quite a bit of care, so Dad doesn't quite as much attention as he wishes he would, since out of the 4 of them, he's the healthiest and has the least requirements.

Still think that person who we know is dying is more important?

And these are the challenges, issues...call them what you want, that face healthcare providers every single day. How do you triage? How do you decide who is more important vs. less important? How do you decide whose case is worth blowing a ton of resources on because they have a chance, and who case is worth letting someone die a comfortable, dignified death because they don't have a chance? And who else will be impacted by your decisions...think back to Dad.

End of life is a hot button topic in this country for one reason...because we don't discuss death openly as being a natural part of life. Because the advances in medicine are leading people to think that healthcare providers can do it all, can save them, can make miracles. Because people think we can make them live forever. I hear it all the time "If they can put a man on the moon, why can't we cure this?"

The poor iwoman in this instance was given as many chances as a terminally ill person could get. She was given 10 days on the vent to see if she would improve. The hospital tried to get her to a facility that offered a more appropriate level of care. The hospital offered to the family to get her mother over here, as was her request, but they pooh-poohed that idea as being too difficult to deal with the red tape in Africa.

I do not personally believe in abortion. I will suppport a woman's right to get one because it is legal in this country. I do not personally believe in murder. I also don't believe in keeping someone with absolutely no quality of life alive. I believe in letting people die with dignity. I believe in trying my best to insure that they do. I believe in trying to make families understand that the last loving thing you can do for someone is to let them go when it is their time to go. A ventilator is exactly that...life support. Without it, she would have died. If she lived in Africa in a village where there were no hospitals or ventilators, she would have died a long time ago. If you are unable to survive for an extended period of time without mechanical ventilation, then you are not "OK", you are not "living"...you are being supported by machines. That is fine for short periods of time...God knows, the mechanics we have in healthcare today have greatly increased our ability to help people. But when it stops being support for a finite period of time for a specific reason, and starts to be the only reason a person is alive, then comes the time to decide quality vs. quantity, life at all costs.

Perhaps my views will land me in Hell someday. Perhaps my participation in keeping dying people comfortable rather than continuing futile treatment will land me a spot closer to the fire. I have seen enough to know that allowing someone to die with dignity, in peace and comfort, is the best thing I can do for them, so I'll take my chances.

I doubt very much that this young lady was allowed to lie there and suffocate and gasp for air for 15 minutes. There is a procedure for taking terminally-ill patients off of a ventilator, which includes medication to relax them, so that they sort of "fade away". It's not a bad way to go.

[Aidensmom]

I always read these end of life debates with great interest. It is amazing the spectrum of opinions, and information or misinformation we DISers have.

I will speak of my personal experiences.

In general, we are able to tell when someone is dying. All of the information we are able to accumulate form the high level testing we are able to do gives us this ability. Do we know exactly when? Well, obviously not. Are there people who will defy the odds? Of course. But in general, someone with terminal cancer is going to die, and you can usually pin it to within weeks, if not days.

Healthcare is a balancing act. Hospital care is a bigger balancing act. Let's look at it from a different perspective.

Your father is having a heart attack. You call 911, the ambulance comes and he's off to the hospital. He gets to the hospital, and they are not accepting any more amubulances because there is simply no more room for patients in the ER or to be distributed throughout the hospital. The place is full, and yes, hospitals do have a census limit. Some of the reason that your father may not get into the first hospital he gets to while having his heart attack is because there are "X" number of terminally ill patients on ventilators taking up ICU bed space.

Still think that person who we know is dying is more important?

OK. The ambulance takes Dad to the next hospital 10 miles away, where they have room. Dad is seen in the ER, treated as appropriate. Dad needs to be in ICU, but wait...there are no beds because there are 3 terminally ill patients in there on ventilators. So Dad gets to sleep in the ER for 48 hours, on a gurney, in a cubicle the size of a decent walk-in closet, while chaos reigns all around him, because after all, ERs are always chaotic. This, of course, doesn't help his cardiac issues...all that stress etc, but well...we have no choice there are no beds, because many of them are being taken up by terminally ill patients receiving futile medical treatment.

Still think that person who we know is dying is more important??

OK, so 48 hours after admission Dad gets a bed in ICU. Of course, there are 3 terminally ill patients who require quite a bit of care, so Dad doesn't quite as much attention as he wishes he would, since out of the 4 of them, he's the healthiest and has the least requirements.

Still think that person who we know is dying is more important?

And these are the challenges, issues...call them what you want, that face healthcare providers every single day. How do you triage? How do you decide who is more important vs. less important? How do you decide whose case is worth blowing a ton of resources on because they have a chance, and who case is worth letting someone die a comfortable, dignified death because they don't have a chance? And who else will be impacted by your decisions...think back to Dad.

End of life is a hot button topic in this country for one reason...because we don't discuss death openly as being a natural part of life. Because the advances in medicine are leading people to think that healthcare providers can do it all, can save them, can make miracles. Because people think we can make them live forever. I hear it all the time "If they can put a man on the moon, why can't we cure this?"

The poor iwoman in this instance was given as many chances as a terminally ill person could get. She was given 10 days on the vent to see if she would improve. The hospital tried to get her to a facility that offered a more appropriate level of care. The hospital offered to the family to get her mother over here, as was her request, but they pooh-poohed that idea as being too difficult to deal with the red tape in Africa.

I do not personally believe in abortion. I will suppport a woman's right to get one because it is legal in this country. I do not personally believe in murder. I also don't believe in keeping someone with absolutely no quality of life alive. I believe in letting people die with dignity. I believe in trying my best to insure that they do. I believe in trying to make families understand that the last loving thing you can do for someone is to let them go when it is their time to go. A ventilator is exactly that...life support. Without it, she would have died. If she lived in Africa in a village where there were no hospitals or ventilators, she would have died a long time ago. If you are unable to survive for an extended period of time without mechanical ventilation, then you are not "OK", you are not "living"...you are being supported by machines. That is fine for short periods of time...God knows, the mechanics we have in healthcare today have greatly increased our ability to help people. But when it stops being support for a finite period of time for a specific reason, and starts to be the only reason a person is alive, then comes the time to decide quality vs. quantity, life at all costs.

Perhaps my views will land me in Hell someday. Perhaps my participation in keeping dying people comfortable rather than continuing futile treatment will land me a spot closer to the fire. I have seen enough to know that allowing someone to die with dignity, in peace and comfort, is the best thing I can do for them, so I'll take my chances.

I doubt very much that this young lady was allowed to lie there and suffocate and gasp for air for 15 minutes. There is a procedure for taking terminally-ill patients off of a ventilator, which includes medication to relax them, so that they sort of "fade away". It's not a bad way to go.

Disney Doll, I completely agree with you.

[Olaf]

Curious--is that $140,000 Canadian dollars? If so, not all that much for an average doc"s salary. Especially considering that most of them are weighed down with huge debt from med school.

Disney Doll, well put and rational.

[DawnCt1]

Disney Doll, well said. You face the front lines everytime you go to work and deal with real life situations that most of us only "discuss". Providing care and comfort in all aspects of an illness, whether its the beginning or at the end of life is what nurses do best. Not every problem can be solved, not everyone can be fixed. It is a harsh reality that all of us have to accept, as unpleasant at it is.

[Chuck S]

Curious--is that $140,000 Canadian dollars? If so, not all that much for an average doc"s salary. Especially considering that most of them are weighed down with huge debt from med school.

$140,000 Canadian is approx. equal to $120,000 US dollars. Not "a lot" compared to US doctors, but certainly not the "Cinderella" type poverty, forcing them to take 2nd jobs on cruise ship that some would portray, either.

[DawnCt1]

$140,000 Canadian is approx. equal to $120,000 US dollars. Not "a lot" compared to US doctors, but certainly not the "Cinderella" type poverty, forcing them to take 2nd jobs on cruise ship that some would portray, either.

:rotfl2: :rotfl2: Chuck, I love your choice of the word "forced". No one is "forced". Its an option of staying home, seeing patients and not being paid if the funds have run out for your particular area or going to work on a cruise ship and getting paid.

[Planogirl]

I can speak from personal experience that the Texas legislature is one messed up group. Does anyone remember the Democrats fleeing to Oklahoma and that whole boondoggle? For which BOTH parties were responsible. That's just one goofy event of many.

That doesn't keep our governors from being just as idiotic both past and present. My dislike for Bush has as much to do with how he governed in Texas as how he plays the role of President today.

So there's no point in trying to put the responsibility only on the Texas legislature. The governor is responsible too.

ETA: This is in response to previous posts that placed the blame for this only on the Texas legislature. That's just too handy an excuse.

[Chuck S]

:rotfl2: :rotfl2: Chuck, I love your choice of the word "forced". No one is "forced". Its an option of staying home, seeing patients and not being paid if the funds have run out for your particular area or going to work on a cruise ship and getting paid.

Actually, there are more options than that, aren't there? They do NOT have to stay home...they could take a lovely non-working vacation somewhere which wouldn't include patients. I find it hard to believe, as is suggested by stating that the cruise ship contracts last for 30 to 60 days, that Canada stops funding it's health system for 2 months out of the year without some sort of stop-gap bill in place like the US does at budget time for essential services.

[damo]

Actually, there are more options than that, aren't there? They do NOT have to stay home...they could take a lovely non-working vacation somewhere which wouldn't include patients. I find it hard to believe, as is suggested by stating that the cruise ship contracts last for 30 to 60 days, that Canada stops funding it's health system for 2 months out of the year without some sort of stop-gap bill in place like the US does at budget time for essential services.

Perhaps, Dawn, you could post some source?

[DawnCt1]

Perhaps Dawn could post some source that this funding stop actually happens at all!


Damo, I can only tell you what two Canadian physicians have told me when I have had the opportunity to speak with them. The conversation goes something like;
"And what brings you to the Caribbean, besides this ship", and then they explain to me and DH what I have relayed to you. Its a conversation. I don't ask them to document their assertions, they basically said that it "beats working for free" and explained why.

[DawnCt1]

Actually, there are more options than that, aren't there? They do NOT have to stay home...they could take a lovely non-working vacation somewhere which wouldn't include patients..

Yes, except you don't get paid to take a lovely non working vacation.

[sha_lyn]

So there's no point in trying to put the responsibility only on the Texas legislature. The governor is responsible too.

ETA: This is in response to previous posts that placed the blame for this only on the Texas legislature. That's just too handy an excuse.


Actually, if you've followed the thread you'll see that many were trying to put the blame solely in the hands of GWB. I was pointing out that for the bill to make it to his desk, the state congress had to pass it. Never said it was solely congress, but many havew implied it was solely GWB

[JennaTX]

Just curious, for those of you who think this is fine, the family should have handled the cost, it is the law, taxpayers should not have to pay for this, etc.

Should there then not be any "charity" hospitals in this country? If you don't have health insurance than what?

Also, for everyone who supports what W signed into law here in Texas, would you like to move here, knowing that if something happens to you it is in the hospitals hands and not your choice, or your families choice??? Are you trying to make that a law in your state since you feel so passionately about it?

[Lil_Tink]

Didn't read posts. But that absoluty sickens me. :guilty:

[sha_lyn]

The woman was dyng and would have been dead in a matter of days. The family refused other offers, such as moving her, or bringing the mother in. What in the hell did they want to keep her suffering for?

Tax payers IMHO should not be paying to keep the terminally ill alive on life support, when the $$ could be paying to save a life. This womans life could not be saved.


Should there then not be any "charity" hospitals in this country?
Charity hospitals are not "wefare" hospitals, they are funded by private charities.


If you don't have health insurance than what?
You get what you pay for

Also, for everyone who supports what W signed into law here in Texas, would you like to move here, knowing that if something happens to you it is in the hospitals hands and not your choice, or your families choice???

Well first of all, if I was a terminal cancer patient, by my choice I wouldn't be in the hospital on a ventilator. I would have already passed, either at home or in hospice. In never would have been the hospitals choice to make.
You try to make it sound as if hospitals are making the choice for everyone, that no one has a choice. Have any facts?

Are you trying to make that a law in your state since you feel so passionately about it?
Who is so passionate about it? Are you trying to get the law revoked in TX since you are so against it.

[JennyMominRI]

You get what you pay for


.
wow,Just wow
Are there no workhouses?

[sha_lyn]

So the family claims they were keeping her alive to see her mother, but refused to let the hospital pay for an immigration attorney. Makes no sense to me at all.

So for all of those against this... just how long should she have been left on the ventilator? Weeks, months, yrs. All of the time taking up resouces that could bu used to save a life instead of keeping one just out of the reach of death.

[Planogirl]

I read that the family only wanted to wait until the mother could get there before the ventilator was turned off. The hospital only gave 10 days and the mother could not be brought in within 10 days, attorney or not.

[sha_lyn]

For some reason the links aren't working, but when I do a search I can read the first few lines of several articles.
Many said she was actually on life support for 25 days. That once the hospital board voted, the family was given 10 days notice.

Oh and if you think the link given in the OP is bad, well you wouldn't believe the number of sites (opinion pieces) I found that want to make it all about the color of her skin.

[JennaTX]

Shalyn, you quoted me many times in you reply, so I wanted to respond.

If you look at my previous posts, I don't normally get involved in the whole conservative/republican debate.

In fact, I have no idea how you can choose certain text only to quote and then reply to, but I will do my best.

In Houston we have a "charity/welfare" hospital, Ben Taub, that is funded by the government, that is where all people without health insurance are sent. It may be supported by some private people, but the majority of it is funded by the taxpayers. So at least here there are "charity" hospitals.

Going with your idea of "you get what you pay for" most insurance plans have a maximum. So if something tragic happens to you, and you have reached your maximum payout, then what? You get what you pay for? Then we say to that person "sorry"?

Also, yes I am trying to get the law changed here in Texas. Are you trying to get the law changed in your state? So that the hospitals have a final say?

[sha_lyn]

In Houston we have a "charity/welfare" hospital, Ben Taub, that is funded by the government, that is where all people without health insurance are sent. It may be supported by some private people, but the majority of it is funded by the taxpayers. So at least here there are "charity" hospitals

I see no evidence that the hospital is ran by any charity. It is a state university hospital, operated by Baylor College of Medicine. It most likely received most of it's funding from medical school tuition, grants, etc than tax payers paying for non insured patients. I also found that many of the physicians are military.

So if something tragic happens to you, and you have reached your maximum payout, then what? You get what you pay for? Then we say to that person "sorry"?
like I said before, how long should the tax payers pay to keep someone on life support who has absolutely no chance in recovering? as I have already said.......If it had been me with terminal cancer I WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ON THE LIFE SUPPORT TO BEGIN WITH

Oh and I've searched for the law. Haven't been able to find it since no source is giving the name of the bill/law.
I did however find this
Salvi was stunned to get this hand-delivered notice invoking a complicated and rarely used Texas law where a doctor is "not obligated to continue" medical treatment "medically inappropriate" when care is not beneficial.

and this video
http://cbs11tv.com/topstories/local_story_348124802.html

From my understanding the law has nothing to do with inability to pay. It has to do with giving a hospital the right to discontinue treatment when the patient is not being benefited by the treatment.

[Mariposa]

You get what you pay for



Yeah, just... Wow. They should definitely put that in the Hippocratic Oath. :rolleyes: I just hope that you or anyone you love are never in a situation where that kind of thinking could be used against you.


As for the situation in general, I feel terrible that the woman had to die knowing that the hospital wouldn't work with her family to find out exactly how long it would take to bring her mother to her and then set THAT as the number of days she would be kept alive.

And I know that this isn't supposed to be a political thread, but the decisions behind this ARE political. And list me amongst those who are sickened by our President's 'culture of life' wars in general, and ESPECIALLY now that it's made clear that they come from no great moral belief that any life is sacred... (Not that I'm shocked.)

[Olaf]

I read that the family only wanted to wait until the mother could get there before the ventilator was turned off. The hospital only gave 10 days and the mother could not be brought in within 10 days, attorney or not.

There were no plans to bring her from Africa, and I'm betting the family couldn't afford the trip.

Chuck, that $140,000/$120,000 figure is an average. That means there's a whole bunch of docs making a lot less than that. .

[catherine]

We already know that in such countries those patients go right to hospice. Its comfortable and humane. We also know in those countries, that those people, who could continue to be productive on some level are denied organ transplants over a certain age, and dialysis. There are lots of Americans who visit their dialysis clinic three times a week and are a pleasure to their families, go to work, care for children, etc. They would be relegated to hospice to die of renal failure. That's not a pleasant death.

I don't know which countries that you are referring to. In the UK we have nationalised healthcare and I can assure you that elderly people who require dialysis receive it. No one is relegated to a hospice to die of renal failure. That includes people who do not have any money or resources!

[Chuck S]

There were no plans to bring her from Africa, and I'm betting the family couldn't afford the trip.

Chuck, that $140,000/$120,000 figure is an average. That means there's a whole bunch of docs making a lot less than that. .

It also would then mean that there's "a whole bunch of docs" making more than that...hence the reason it is called an "average".

[BuckNaked]

How about, "LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?"

That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution... ;)

[Tigger_Magic]

That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution... ;) Minor technicality. It's still a valid promise or guarantee, right? ;)

[AllyandJack]

Life is never a guarantee. As for Liberty....well, until the government stops taking over 40% of what DH and I earn, that one is a big lie, too.

I don't think it's an insurance/no insurance issue. I honestly believe that Blue Cross would cut me off at some point. I also believe that Medicaid/Medicare would, too. So, whether you have private insurance, no insurance, or government insurance, at some point, you will most likely be cut off and then it's up to the hospital.

I do agree that the family should have had more notification though....if they were coming from a long distance, they should have been given at least 30 days to gather funding and make plans to go to the hospital. Not many people can acquire thousands of dollars and make travel plans in 10 days. The taxpayers shouldn't pay to keep her alive indefinitely, but there has to be some level of compassion and reason.

[Tigger_Magic]

I do agree that the family should have had more notification though....if they were coming from a long distance, they should have been given at least 30 days to gather funding and make plans to go to the hospital. Not many people can acquire thousands of dollars and make travel plans in 10 days. The taxpayers shouldn't pay to keep her alive indefinitely, but there has to be some level of compassion and reason. How much more compassion and reason should the hospital have exercised. The hospital already "contacted 12 facilities including hospitals, long term acute care facilities and nursing homes, all of whom declined to accept the patient.” The hospital also offered to hire an immigration attorney free of charge to help bring the woman's mother from East Africa. Relatives, however, said the East African process was too lengthy.

Seems to me that the hospital went above and beyond the call of reasonable and compassionate. JMO, but this is just another case of the DailyKos grinding another politically partisan axe.

[AllyandJack]

I was just reacting to the time limit....I read in one of the posts that it was 10 days (is that wrong?).

To me, that doesn't seem like enough time to gather yourself together and arrange for such a long trip.

I don't disagree with the hospital's ultimate decision, but on the family side of it, I don't see how giving 30 days instead of 10 days is such a hardship. After that, presume the family isn't coming and do what has to be done.

[Olaf]

It also would then mean that there's "a whole bunch of docs" making more than that...hence the reason it is called an "average".


Ya think? :rolleyes:

All I'm trying to say is that there's going to be plenty of doctors, pulling salaries, that might make them interested in working on a cruise ship.

[BuckNaked]

Minor technicality. It's still a valid promise or guarantee, right? ;)


An ideal, but not a right. ;)

Good to see ya again!!

[sodaseller]

Ya think? :rolleyes:

All I'm trying to say is that there's going to be plenty of doctors, pulling salaries, that might make them interested in working on a cruise ship.
And there will be some who feel the need for more income if they made 3X that much. Emptiness can do that. But it's a nonpoint. This whole argument evolved because of the silly argument that Canadian physicians were forced to take on extra work due to the penurious circumstances they existed in due to their meager salaries. That's a bizarre argument that simple shame should keep from being advanced. It still astounds me that years of Randian agitprop have a produced a soulless segment of the populace that cannot feel empathy for the truly indigent but can decry the condition of those compelled to make do on six figure salaries. It is truly a looking glass world we live in.

[Disney Doll]

I don't think it's an insurance/no insurance issue. I honestly believe that Blue Cross would cut me off at some point. I also believe that Medicaid/Medicare would, too. So, whether you have private insurance, no insurance, or government insurance, at some point, you will most likely be cut off and then it's up to the hospital.

You are correct. Every health insurer has a maximum, catastrophic amount that they will pay and that is it. Now granted, that amount is high, and in general most of us will never come close (thank God!) but on occasion someone does come quite close. I believe Christopher Reeve was pretty close by the time he died, as I seem to recall an interview with he and his wife where they were discussing the topic and felt fortunate to have the financial wherewithal to pay for his care should his insurance run out.

This is not a race issue, it is not even a political issue (though most folks try to turn it into that). It is a healthcare issue. And it is a healthcare issue that goes on many times every day in this country. Some of them receive press, usually if the story suits someone's political agenda, and some of them do not. Terri Schiavo satisfied the agenda for the Conservatives. This young lady satisfies the agenda for the Liberals, which is why we are hearing about them. Terri also had parents who worked tirelessly to keep her name and therefore their own notoriety alive.

As I said before, healthcare is a balancing act. We are constantly triaging, looking at who needs what, who needs what level of care, who is most in need of the resources we have available? Think of the organ transplantation system. The person with the most need gets the organ, because the resources are limited. Well, it is the same in the general healthcare system...our resources are limited, and therefore we have to do the greatest good for the greatest number with what we have.

Years ago, we had a seminar on disaster care. The gentleman who gave the lecture was a fabulouos speaker, had worked for FEMA, the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders... he had vast experience in disaster preparedness and response. His biggest point was...you don't waste resources on people you can't save. We did a mock disaster triage. He showed us pictures of injured people....some very seriously, some not. There are 3 levels of triage in a disaster...red, which is fatal so don't waste resources or time, yellow which is pretty sick so give it a shot but if they take a turn for the worse then they become a red, and green which is save them. A dramatic example, because day to day hospital care is not a disaster per se, but nonetheless, the issues about resources, and decisions about keeping a terminal person alive and therefore maybe not being able to help a viable child do exist.

After having read several articles, some less slanted than the OP's original link, it doesn't seem to me that there was much more the hospital could have done or offered this woman or her family. We are fortunate to have some of the best medical care in the world here. But nonetheless, healthcare providers aren't God, there is only so much we can and should do.

[Tigger_Magic]

After having read several articles, some less slanted than the OP's original link, it doesn't seem to me that there was much more the hospital could have done or offered this woman or her family. We are fortunate to have some of the best medical care in the world here. But nonetheless, healthcare providers aren't God, there is only so much we can and should do. The last sentence says it all beautifully. Strip away the attempts to leverage this for partisan political gain and this is what you are left with. There is no right to indefinite, unpaid health care. Charity can go only so far, especially for someone who has already been determined to be terminal.

If you wonder why healthcare costs and insurance premiums are skyrocketing, this is just one of the reasons why. Somewhere, somehow all healthcare has to be paid for. There is no such thing as a free lunch or free healthcare.

[Tiggernut_jadie]

I don't know which countries that you are referring to. In the UK we have nationalised healthcare and I can assure you that elderly people who require dialysis receive it. No one is relegated to a hospice to die of renal failure. That includes people who do not have any money or resources!

I was thinking exactly the same Catherine! Mind you considering DawnCT's 'evidence' about Canadin doctor's moonlighting on Cruise ships was based on a short chat with someone on the ship, I suppose she might have spoken to someone about it once!!! :rolleyes:

I'm appalled at the lack of compasion shown by some posters on this thread. Escpecially 'you get waht you pay for!' It would be very interesting o know how many people who have posted on this thread would conside themselves christian?!!!!!! :confused3

I'm a nurse and can assure anyone that this woman would NOT have been treated in this way in the UK! IF and when the decison was made to remove her breathing tube, it would have been in consultation with the family.

There seems to be a feeling that because the family said the african authorities would take too long to sort out the visa etc that this in some way means they weren't interested in trying to do something about it. I personally read this to mean that the family could not afford to pay for the mother to come from Africa even with the hospital's offer to pay for a lawyer. If the family had been given more than 10 days, they may have been able to find the funds from somewhere. I don't think people in the US realise how long winded a process it is to get a visa to come to your country - particularly from countries such as Africa. The lady's mother would have been lucky to have even got an appointment at the embassy in that time!

:( :mad:

[Galahad]

It still astounds me that years of Randian agitprop have a produced a soulless segment of the populace that cannot feel empathy for the truly indigent but can decry the condition of those compelled to make do on six figure salaries.

Not to take away from the extraordinarily valid point about lack of compassion, this impressively constructed sentence does illustrate how agitprop can come from anywhere; old, cynical, atheist, chain-smoking authors notwithstanding.

[BuckNaked]

I'm appalled at the lack of compasion shown by some posters on this thread. Escpecially 'you get waht you pay for!' It would be very interesting o know how many people who have posted on this thread would conside themselves christian?!!!!!! :confused3



You may not like the sentiment, but it's true - you do get what you pay for. Like it or not, health care is a commodity, and like any other commodity, those that are willing and able to pay more will get a better "product".

[sha_lyn]

I was just reacting to the time limit....I read in one of the posts that it was 10 days (is that wrong?).



The notice that they would discontinue life support was for 10 days. She was on the ventilator for 15 days prior to that.

I will ask this again.... HOW LONG SHOULD SHE HAVE BEEN LEFT ON THE VENTILATOR...WEEKS...MONTHS...YEARS? HOW MUCH OF THE HOSPITALS RESOURCES SHOULD HAVE GONE TO HELP SOMEONE WHO HAD NO CHANCE OF SURVIVING, WHEN THE $$ COULD GO TOWARD HELPING SAVE A LIFE OR MANY LIVES

[chobie]

I'm appalled at the lack of compasion shown by some posters on this thread. Escpecially 'you get waht you pay for!' It would be very interesting o know how many people who have posted on this thread would conside themselves christian?!!!!!! :confused3 :( :mad:


I'm sure the Christians could justify this position. Isn't there something in the bible about "getting what you paid for"? :confused3

[sha_lyn]

nope not Christain

I'll ask again... for those of you that hate "you get what pay for"

How long should she have been left on a ventilator with zero chance of recovering?
How many people are you will to let die that could live, when money and resources are going to keep some one alive that has no chance what so ever of recovering.

IMHO that is the position that lack compassion.

[DawnCt1]

And there will be some who feel the need for more income if they made 3X that much. Emptiness can do that. But it's a nonpoint. This whole argument evolved because of the silly argument that Canadian physicians were forced to take on extra work due to the penurious circumstances they existed in due to their meager salaries. That's a bizarre argument that simple shame should keep from being advanced.

:rotfl2: So then, we should assume that Canadian docs staff cruise ships because of "emptiness". Do tell how you plan to advance that arguement? I know they relish seeing 60 plus patients per day and that is where they can get the biggest patient load. :rotfl2:

[JennyMominRI]

nope not Christain

I'll ask again... for those of you that hate "you get what pay for"

How long should she have been left on a ventilator with zero chance of recovering?
How many people are you will to let die that could live, when money and resources are going to keep some one alive that has no chance what so ever of recovering.

IMHO that is the position that lack compassion.

I never commented on this case,because I don't feel informed enough about these issues to comment on a specific case,plus I feel like many posters with medical experience brought up some good points
I just wonder how far the *you get what you pay for* thing goes.. Do people who have no insurance get what they paid for...nothing..I'm not talking about life support here,but the idea that if you have no medical insurance you get NO treatment.. I assume that's *not * what you mean.. Not everyone without insurance is poor either.. Often people with AIDS can't even get insurance

[BuckNaked]

I just wonder how far the *you get what you pay for* thing goes.. Do people who have no insurnce get what they paid for...nothing..I'm not talking about life support here,but the idea that if you have no medical insurence you get NO treatment.. I assume that's *not * what you mean.. Not everyonne without insurance is poor either.. Othen people with AIDS can't even get insurance

Speaking *only* for myself, I think that people without insurance should get as much care as they can either pay for or have provided to them by the hospital, charities or local governments, if those governments choose to provide such care.

[Tigger_Magic]

I never commented on this case,because I don't feel informed enough about these issues to comment on a specific case,plus I feel like many posters with medical experience brought up some good points
I just wonder how far the *you get what you pay for* thing goes.. Do people who have no insurance get what they paid for...nothing..I'm not talking about life support here,but the idea that if you have no medical insurance you get NO treatment.. I assume that's *not * what you mean.. Not everyone without insurance is poor either.. Often people with AIDS can't even get insurance I agree with the other poster who said that healthcare, at least in America, is a commodity. To that end, one gets what one can afford. Fortunately, there are some safety nets in place for those who have no insurance for whatever reason. And I've been there myself... more than once, so I know what it's like when you can't afford to see the doctor.

Ideally, we would provide universal healthcare to every U.S. citizen, regardless of their ability to pay. However, I doubt that our economy would long survive the costs of such an ideal.

Compassion is wonderful to talk about, but when one begins discussing compassion in terms of healthcare, it needs to be balanced with the reality that the "compassionate healthcare" ultimately has to be paid for by someone. When I consider that, I have to say that, sadly, there has to be a limit on compassion, otherwise, we're looking at bankrupting our country and I'm not prepared to accept that as a reasonable consequence.

[CapeCodTenor]

I agree with the other poster who said that healthcare, at least in America, is a commodity. To that end, one gets what one can afford. Fortunately, there are some safety nets in place for those who have no insurance for whatever reason. And I've been there myself... more than once, so I know what it's like when you can't afford to see the doctor.

Ideally, we would provide universal healthcare to every U.S. citizen, regardless of their ability to pay. However, I doubt that our economy would long survive the costs of such an ideal.

Compassion is wonderful to talk about, but when one begins discussing compassion in terms of healthcare, it needs to be balanced with the reality that the "compassionate healthcare" ultimately has to be paid for by someone. When I consider that, I have to say that, sadly, there has to be a limit on compassion, otherwise, we're looking at bankrupting our country and I'm not prepared to accept that as a reasonable consequence.
Thank you for posting this. I could not have said it any better.

[Ali and boyz]

everybody moans here in the UK about the NHS but at least we wouldn't have to go through all what you guys do re Insurance and not getting proper treatment because of the insurance etc.

[DawnCt1]

everybody moans here in the UK about the NHS but at least we wouldn't have to go through all what you guys do re Insurance and not getting proper treatment because of the insurance etc.


Regardless of what you may hear, no one goes without proper treatment because they don't have insurance. Anyone sick or injured who shows up in an emergency room always receives appropriate treatment regardless of their ability to pay.

[Galahad]

Regardless of what you may hear, no one goes without proper treatment because they don't have insurance. Anyone sick or injured who shows up in an emergency room always receives appropriate treatment regardless of their ability to pay.

She's right about this Ali and boyz. While it does happen sometimes, most often patients are indeed treated the same whether they can pay or not. It all get sorted out, shifted around and such, but there aren't legions of people with no healthcare. It may be that some don't seek treatment because they don't have "coverage" but if they did seek treatment, they would be able to get it in most cases.

[Tiggernut_jadie]

....Unless they're terminally ill and then they're given 10 days 'grace before someone pull the plug!!!!!!

[BuckNaked]

....Unless they're terminally ill and then they're given 10 days 'grace before someone pull the plug!!!!!!

What kind of treatment do you expect them to give to a terminally ill patient? Not like it's treatable.

[Ali and boyz]

Regardless of what you may hear, no one goes without proper treatment because they don't have insurance. Anyone sick or injured who shows up in an emergency room always receives appropriate treatment regardless of their ability to pay.

Thats good. hope I didn't offend anyone. I was just worried for you guys if you were sick and had no insurance.

[Tigger_Magic]

Thats good. hope I didn't offend anyone. I was just worried for you guys if you were sick and had no insurance. The concern is well founded, because as another poster said there are many who do not seek healthcare because they have neither money nor insurance, not knowing they could still get treatment at practically any ER. Fortunately, when I was without insurance, I knew that, in a real emergency, I could go to the ER. Thankfully, in those instances, emergencies managed to avoid me or I them. Either way, I was probably just lucky. There are too many people in the U.S. who are not.

[catherine]

Regardless of what you may hear, no one goes without proper treatment because they don't have insurance. Anyone sick or injured who shows up in an emergency room always receives appropriate treatment regardless of their ability to pay.

Surely this approach pushes up the costs of medical treatment. I know that many people only go to the ER when they are critically ill. I think that it's very unlikely that someone is going to go and sit in the ER for 10 plus hours to get a prescription for antibiotics that they wouldn't be able to afford to pay for anyway.

Last year I took care of a US citizen who was taken critically ill while he was visiting the UK. He was very appreciative of the fact that he was nursed here under the NHS and he didn't have to pay a penny!

[DawnCt1]

Surely this approach pushes up the costs of medical treatment. I know that many people only go to the ER when they are critically ill. I think that it's very unlikely that someone is going to go and sit in the ER for 10 plus hours to get a prescription for antibiotics that they wouldn't be able to afford to pay for anyway.

Last year I took care of a US citizen who was taken critically ill while he was visiting the UK. He was very appreciative of the fact that he was nursed here under the NHS and he didn't have to pay a penny!


It does drive up the cost of health care for everyone because the hospitals have to absorb the costs and spread it out to the rest of the paying public. That said, your system, of taking care of US citizens while they are visiting, also has to drive up your costs and your taxes. Someone ends up paying. That's a fact, it just may not be that particular American visitor. And yes, people do abuse and use the ER for minor complaints as well as major emergencies. That won't change. That isn't just the group that can't afford to pay but those who don't plan ahead and decide that at 10 pm that sore throat that they have had all day should be "looked at". That's another BIG problem.

[Puffy2]

And yes, people do abuse and use the ER for minor complaints as well as major emergencies. That won't change. That isn't just the group that can't afford to pay but those who don't plan ahead and decide that at 10 pm that sore throat that they have had all day should be "looked at". That's another BIG problem.

One that is fueled by an inefficent healthcare system in the US where people who have insurance, can pay, but can't get an appointment to see their physicans for weeks out. That is common occurance in large cities and it's BS - no wonder they go to the ER and end up paying 5 times the amount and take all day just so they can be seen and treated in a reasonable time frame of a day or two instead of 3 months.

[PrincessKitty1]

My question is, what doctor made the decision to intubate this young woman in the first place?? I can't imagine anybody trying to prolong the life of someone who was already so close to death.

I know for a fact that numerous medical decisions are based on a patient's ability or inability to pay. However, whether this patient had insurance or not, intubation is NOT palliative care for cancer. It is an aggressive action to save a life. So if she was about to die, why did they intubate her in the first place?? Just wondering.

BTW, it is a false statement to say that "no one goes without proper care because they don't have insurance." Emergency rooms can and do turn people away without insurance if their conditions are not emergencies. Plus, many people cannot afford to pay for the medications that would keep them well, so they do indeed go without proper care. Finally, emergency rooms can provide great care for emergencies but they do not provide good care for chronic conditions.

When I worked in the admissions department of a local hospital, surgeries classified as "emergent" had to performed whether the patient had insurance or not. So a "financial counselor" would call the physician, explain the patient did not have insurance, and the physician would then downgrade the surgery to "urgent."

The "financial counselor" would then call the patient and tell them the surgery would not be performed unless they came with cash upfront. So yes, people are denied proper care frequently, based on lack of insurance. That's just one example, I could come up with dozens more (having worked in health care for decades!).

[catherine]

One that is fueled by an inefficent healthcare system in the US where people who have insurance, can pay, but can't get an appointment to see their physicans for weeks out. That is common occurance in large cities and it's BS - no wonder they go to the ER and end up paying 5 times the amount and take all day just so they can be seen and treated in a reasonable time frame of a day or two instead of 3 months.

I can't believe that you are all paying that amount of money for your health coverage and you have to wait weeks to see a doctor. Is this a common occurence? I get upset if I have to wait a couple of days to see my GP! :rolleyes:

[Puffy2]

I can't believe that you are all paying that amount of money for your health coverage and you have to wait weeks to see a doctor. Is this a common occurence? I get upset if I have to wait a couple of days to see my GP!

Yes, it's common occurance with the decent doctors with good reputations. My husband had a lump in his neck - the docs office said they could see him in 5 months (gee, thanks, he could be dead by then).
Had a skin complication and couldn't get in to see our regular dermatologist for two months - couldn't wait that long, saw a doc-in the-box THREE TIMES - misdiagnoised and condition persisted. When we finally got in to see the dermatologist, she said the patient had been misdiagnoised. Well, great, if we could have seen her first, none of this would have happened.

The thing is, it's a larger situation than most of us realize - in the US there are plenty of qualifiied people who want to attend medical school but our system keeps the supply of physicans low on purpose - few medical schools, huge tuition. It's just a sad situation fueled by greed.

[Chuck S]

Yes, it's common occurance with the decent doctors with good reputations. My husband had a lump in his neck - the docs office said they could see him in 5 months (gee, thanks, he could be dead by then).
Had a skin complication and couldn't get in to see our regular dermatologist for two months - couldn't wait that long, saw a doc-in the-box THREE TIMES - misdiagnoised and condition persisted. When we finally got in to see the dermatologist, she said the patient had been misdiagnoised. Well, great, if we could have seen her first, none of this would have happened.

The thing is, it's a larger situation than most of us realize - in the US there are plenty of qualifiied people who want to attend medical school but our system keeps the supply of physicans low on purpose - few medical schools, huge tuition. It's just a sad situation fueled by greed.

Ditto the experience. We hear so much about skin cancers, when I noticed a strange and growing red spot, I thought perhaps it was a fungal infection and tried to treat it with OTC ointments...no effect, so then I called the dermatologist...two month wait, so I called my Mother's internist, who saw me in a week and misdiagnosed it as a bacterial infection and gave me antibiotic cream...which of course didn't work. Two weeks later, I went back to the internist who referred me to the SAME derm and "amazingly" got me in right away because it was a referral. Turns out is wasn't a serious conditon :), but 10 minutes in the derms office in the first place could have 1) saved $$, both for the interist and ineffective prescription 2) gotten me relief much faster, as the spot spread considerably in that time 3) not put the the stress and worry on me about it possibly being serious, as skin cancer does occur on my fathers side of the family. And for those who would suggest trying a different derm, there is only one in town.

[DawnCt1]

I can't believe that you are all paying that amount of money for your health coverage and you have to wait weeks to see a doctor. Is this a common occurence? I get upset if I have to wait a couple of days to see my GP! :rolleyes:

I nor my children have ever had to wait "weeks" go see a doctor. I suppose that in some underserved areas, that could be the case. On the other hand, walk in centers are available in most areas.

[sha_lyn]

I just wonder how far the *you get what you pay for* thing goes.. Do people who have no insurnce get what they paid for...nothing..I'm not talking about life support here,but the idea that if you have no medical insurence you get NO treatment.. I assume that's *not * what you mean.. Not everyonne without insurance is poor either.. Othen people with AIDS can't even get insurance

My comment was made in reguards of this case. However it appears it had nothing to do with insurance and had everything to do with a Dr incubating a terminally ill patient that should not have been incubated in the first place.

I was also asked earlier about the law.... As I said before I can't find anything on the law other than the hype by those attacking GWB. Can't really post a position on a law I haven't read.

[DisneyDotty]

This issue is so close to home...
I have been a foster mother to several kids in the past few years. Our most recent foster son came to us with some kind of allergic reaction/skin rash. No medical info available. As the condition worsened, I tried to get him into a doctor in my area (suburbs of Chicago.) NOT ONE doctor (called probably twenty, including so-called "low income clinics") would see him because of his prior condition/being on Medicaid/no appointments available for the next two months... Finally I had no choice but to take him to ER, where they said he has an allergic rash (DUH!) and I should follow up with the pediatrician listed. Went to the ped--he said, yes, the boy has an allergy and really should be evaluated but that this MD wouldn't take anymore Medicaid patients so go find another doctor. This could have potentially been a life-threatening condition--who knows what the poor kid was allergic to--and my only source for medical help was an understaffed ER. And how much did the state have to pay for an ER visit?
Had a similar issue with another foster son who needed surgery, but again, no doctor in my area would see him because of Medicaid. What are working people who can't afford to traipse around looking for medical care for their children supposed to do?
So yes, people without insurance are forced to use the ER because doctors today refuse to see them. And God help us all if we are without insurance and have any kind of chronic health issue.
It is extremely frustrating to have a child with a medical condition not get proper treatment. Those of us who have experienced this know that our country desperately needs to reevaluate our health care/insurance industry.

[catherine]

This issue is so close to home...
I have been a foster mother to several kids in the past few years. Our most recent foster son came to us with some kind of allergic reaction/skin rash. No medical info available. As the condition worsened, I tried to get him into a doctor in my area (suburbs of Chicago.) NOT ONE doctor (called probably twenty, including so-called "low income clinics") would see him because of his prior condition/being on Medicaid/no appointments available for the next two months... Finally I had no choice but to take him to ER, where they said he has an allergic rash (DUH!) and I should follow up with the pediatrician listed. Went to the ped--he said, yes, the boy has an allergy and really should be evaluated but that this MD wouldn't take anymore Medicaid patients so go find another doctor. This could have potentially been a life-threatening condition--who knows what the poor kid was allergic to--and my only source for medical help was an understaffed ER. And how much did the state have to pay for an ER visit?
Had a similar issue with another foster son who needed surgery, but again, no doctor in my area would see him because of Medicaid. What are working people who can't afford to traipse around looking for medical care for their children supposed to do?
So yes, people without insurance are forced to use the ER because doctors today refuse to see them. And God help us all if we are without insurance and have any kind of chronic health issue.
It is extremely frustrating to have a child with a medical condition not get proper treatment. Those of us who have experienced this know that our country desperately needs to reevaluate our health care/insurance industry.
:grouphug: I can't imagine being in a situation where one of my children needed to see a doctor and I had nowhere to go! How helpless you must have felt! I feel so sad for families who are not able to afford healthcare insurance and have to resort to going to the ER every time they need some medical treatment for their child.

I can see that there is a big problem with having to use the ER as there is no continuity of care. Where are a person's medical records kept?

[Galahad]

The thing is, it's a larger situation than most of us realize - in the US there are plenty of qualifiied people who want to attend medical school but our system keeps the supply of physicans low on purpose - few medical schools, huge tuition. It's just a sad situation fueled by greed.


THIS IS UTTER HORSE DOO-DOO!

[BuckNaked]

THIS IS UTTER HORSE DOO-DOO!

::yes::

[Tigger_Magic]

Yes, it's common occurance with the decent doctors with good reputations. My husband had a lump in his neck - the docs office said they could see him in 5 months (gee, thanks, he could be dead by then).
Had a skin complication and couldn't get in to see our regular dermatologist for two months - couldn't wait that long, saw a doc-in the-box THREE TIMES - misdiagnoised and condition persisted. When we finally got in to see the dermatologist, she said the patient had been misdiagnoised. Well, great, if we could have seen her first, none of this would have happened. It is safer to say this is your experience instead of making such a sweeping generalization. My experience is much different. I also have family living in Georgia who have no problem getting quick access to healthcare. It's not as "common" as you'd try to lead people to believe. The thing is, it's a larger situation than most of us realize - in the US there are plenty of qualifiied people who want to attend medical school but our system keeps the supply of physicans low on purpose - few medical schools, huge tuition. It's just a sad situation fueled by greed. I'm sure you have some evidence to support this contention. :rolleyes1

[AllyandJack]

My best friend has been "uninsured" for the last 3 years. She got free care at Mass General Hospital. She had her own primary care doctor and her care was no less suitable than mine. When she got pregnant, she went on Medicaid and kept all of her doctors and got everything paid and her care never changed. When her DH got a real job (he had been working under the table and making $700./week clear while they're on public assistance, but that's a whole different story!), she was able to purchase Medicaid to cover them for the waiting period the job had for insurance. Again, all the same doctors, no issue with quality of care, etc. She paid between $50. and $150. a month depending on what treatment she had the prior month. Now, she has insurance, her DH works AND works the under the table job making about $400./week with that, in addition to his real job where he makes another $300./week after taxes and insurance and she has Medicaid to cover her co-payments!

She is not the only person I know getting free care or Medicaid or other state systems. A friend of mine has her kid on the NH Healthy Kids program because her DH is self-employed. He makes over $2,000 a week clear, but they only get the insurance for themselves and have him on the state program.

There ARE programs out there. There are programs to assist with COBRA payments if you lose your job. The problem is that we give away the free care and Medicaid to anyone who manages to jump over the border. As a result of this form of "compassion", citizens who hit rough times are told to suck it up when they need help. I've been there. I needed help. I was shown the door. Too bad, so sad. All I wanted was help paying the $750./month in COBRA. We had savings for the mortgage and other bills. We just needed help with the COBRA. Tough luck on me, I guess. I only pay the taxes, I never actually get to benefit from them - it was quite the learning experience.

If I called my family doctor right now, I'd be in to see him this afternoon. I never wait weeks, let alone months to see any of my doctors. Neither does my friend on Medicaid. Nobody I know has ever had to wait months to see a doctor - maybe it's because there are an abundance of quality doctors who choose to practice in this area. I'm not saying it doesn't happen in certain parts of the country, but it's certainly not a pervasive problem nationwide.

College and graduate school are expensive. I'm over $100,000 in debt thanks to my law degree. That's life. It's not a big conspiracy.