PDA

View Full Version : I can't believe this -- Medicaid is eliminating funding for organ transplants. "Go ho



Carol
12-19-2010, 09:00 PM
link (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x41711)


anneboleyn (1000+ posts) Sun Dec-19-10 08:19 PM
Original message
I can't believe this -- Medicaid is eliminating funding for organ transplants. "Go home and die."

This was discussed on 60 Minutes tonight, as part of a general story about the states and the terrible cuts being made across the board -- devastating our public education, pensions for state workers, and healthcare for the poor, elderly, and disabled. As another poster noted, 60 Minutes didn't address the corruption -- the rich, as usual, getting tax cuts and avoiding penalties while the poor and middle-class suffer miserably as the states make "hard decisions" -- "hard decisions" that always impact the poor and middle-class, of course.

In Arizona (this started in November), Medicaid will no longer fund organ transplants in a large number of cases, considering transplants to be "elective surgery." Yes, *elective surgery.* A 36 y.o. father who needed a heart transplant due to a childhood illness was told he needed to raise his own funding for the procedure, as Medicaid would now no longer pay for his heart transplant. Sure, a Medicaid patient will be able to raise his own funding for a heart transplant! I have no doubt that other states will follow AZ's lead in this matter to help "reduce costs."

Now go home and die, all of you poor and disabled.

This is an automatic death sentence. How can this happen? And people aren't in the streets here, in our own country, over these devastating, literal life-and-death decisions being made by our state governments? It's just so depressing. I know our healthcare situation is just terrible, but this I find especially dismal. It is a clear, open, brutal attack directly on the poor and disabled, effectively informing them that if they are in need of an organ transplant, they are not worth the money and should just go home, shut up, and die. I can't believe what is happening -- healthcare is being destroyed for the poor. And the slashing silently continues.
And just WHO is it that thinks that we should all have government health care?

NOT the Republicans........it's the liberals who want MORE of this.

But of course they blame Republicans/conservatives because government doesn't have an open checkbook financed by "the rich".

Lithos Lead Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Sun Dec-19-10 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. Just another GOP death panel...

Nothing new here...
Every other country that has largely universal/government health care has limits in place about what they will cover.......and mechanisms to decrease cost........like needing to wait for months for routine procedures as well as life threatening illnesses.....yet they think the US will be any different?

This reinforces what conservatives have been saying, but they have to twist it to blame conservatives.

According to them it's a problem because the rich don't pay in enough. And as the costs go up and up it will get to the point that it is no longer affordable even soaking the rich..............leading to refusing treatment for costly cures and attempts to save lives. Unintended consequences and all that.

anneboleyn (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec-19-10 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Yes, literally, a death panel. They are effectively telling these patients to die.

In these cases the denial of care leads clearly to death; they can't even argue that treatment is "experimental" or "unproven to be effective" or the usual nonsense.

anneboleyn (1000+ posts) Sun Dec-19-10 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I am truly horrified by how literal this has become. Be rich, or die.

tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Sun Dec-19-10 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Yet when Alan Grayson pointed out that this was the Repuiblican

health care plan--"Don't get sick--and if you get sick, die"--people squawked as though he had stepped on someone's mother!

Newest Reality Donating Member (808 posts) Sun Dec-19-10 08:32 PM
Response to Original message
5. Another one of the flashing lights that

goes along with disturbing trends indicating that the human resources, (people) are falling in value as we speak. The value of non-wealthy, means-of-production units is depreciating quickly. Sell!

It is not hard to imagine that this is going to continue and increase to the point that we will see some less obvious method to the madness we assume.

Imagine rather quickly solving the problem of dwindling resources, climate impact and biosphere degradation, and then creating a virtual Utopia with what's left. Now, how would you do that? ;)

anneboleyn (1000+ posts) Sun Dec-19-10 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. My thoughts also. The poor who can no longer work will essentially be put to death.

If they are so unfortunate as to need any healthcare from the great protection of the "state."

truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Sun Dec-19-10 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
8. In California,if you are on County paid insurance, you are treated

quite well if dealing with the normal day to day stuff. If you fall and break a bone, or come down with pneumonia, you will be given good care.

But if you should need to see a specialist, there is a typical nine month wait, as "Anthem" Blue Cross doesn't provide enough specialists for this program.

So if you need a neurologist, you might end up having the stroke the neurologist might have prevented, had you seen them in time.

Same situation in terms of seeing the heart specialist.

And all the while Anthem gets to pocket the monies the state legislature allows them to have.That's right....more high quality government health care.

m00
12-19-2010, 09:07 PM
Maybe if we weren't bankrupted by Obamacare, Medicaid would have a bit more in the coffers.

Rockntractor
12-19-2010, 09:10 PM
Maybe if we weren't bankrupted by Obamacare, Medicaid would have a bit more in the coffers.

Why yes but old people are expendable, until you are the one that is old.

megimoo
12-19-2010, 09:14 PM
link (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x41711)


And just WHO is it that thinks that we should all have government health care?

NOT the Republicans........it's the liberals who want MORE of this.

But of course they blame Republicans/conservatives because government doesn't have an open checkbook financed by "the rich".

Every other country that has largely universal/government health care has limits in place about what they will cover.......and mechanisms to decrease cost........like needing to wait for months for routine procedures as well as life threatening illnesses.....yet they think the US will be any different?

This reinforces what conservatives have been saying, but they have to twist it to blame conservatives.

According to them it's a problem because the rich don't pay in enough. And as the costs go up and up it will get to the point that it is no longer affordable even soaking the rich..............leading to refusing treatment for costly cures and attempts to save lives. Unintended consequences and all that.





That's right....more high quality government health care.
You aint seen nothing yet !!

m00
12-19-2010, 09:30 PM
Why yes but old people are expendable, until you are the one that is old.

What I think liberals failed to realize is that the more universal your coverage, the less good it is. As quantity goes up, quality goes down. So this is a natural outcome of the policies they advocated.

Kay
12-19-2010, 10:02 PM
I'm an organ donor, all but my heart and eyes.
I plan to take those two items with me.

But I don't think I would opt to have an organ transplant.
I guess we never know what we will do till we are put in
a situation for real, Even on my death bed I just don't think
I'd want a stranger's kidneys or other parts inside me. It's
just a thang I have. When my parts wear out I'm ready to
move on to the other side.

djones520
12-19-2010, 10:13 PM
I got into a huge argument about Arizona doing this on another forum. Made the case about how Illegal immigration is costing the state so much money that they have to make cuts like this.

Right out the gate, got called a racist. :rolleyes:

Dan D. Doty
12-19-2010, 11:26 PM
Moonbats were TOLD this was coming, but as always they blame everyone else in the room :rolleyes:

Kay
12-19-2010, 11:52 PM
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/rma/lowres/rman9166l.jpg

Rockntractor
12-19-2010, 11:55 PM
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/rma/lowres/rman9166l.jpg

So true!:D

Adam Wood
12-20-2010, 12:34 AM
The story that has them so bent out of shape (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7166293n).

And (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x42480). They (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x41658). Are (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x41551). Melting (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x41578). Down (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x41526).


First half-decent piece of reporting I've seen cBS and particularly 60 Minutes in a very long time.

Constitutionally Speaking
12-20-2010, 06:49 AM
link (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x41711)


And just WHO is it that thinks that we should all have government health care?

NOT the Republicans........it's the liberals who want MORE of this.

But of course they blame Republicans/conservatives because government doesn't have an open checkbook financed by "the rich".

Every other country that has largely universal/government health care has limits in place about what they will cover.......and mechanisms to decrease cost........like needing to wait for months for routine procedures as well as life threatening illnesses.....yet they think the US will be any different?

This reinforces what conservatives have been saying, but they have to twist it to blame conservatives.

According to them it's a problem because the rich don't pay in enough. And as the costs go up and up it will get to the point that it is no longer affordable even soaking the rich..............leading to refusing treatment for costly cures and attempts to save lives. Unintended consequences and all that.





That's right....more high quality government health care.



These assholes have the NERVE to blame Republicans for this?!?!?!!!!!


THis is EXACTLY what we have been trying to prevent!!

Wei Wu Wei
12-20-2010, 10:55 AM
What I think liberals failed to realize is that the more universal your coverage, the less good it is. As quantity goes up, quality goes down. So this is a natural outcome of the policies they advocated.

This is only true if the goal of the health care service providers is to get the resources to the people most effectively.

If the goal is profit, all of the rules change to serve this end.

Wei Wu Wei
12-20-2010, 10:55 AM
These assholes have the NERVE to blame Republicans for this?!?!?!!!!!


THis is EXACTLY what we have been trying to prevent!!

lol ya right



http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/rma/lowres/rman9166l.jpg



haha exactly

NJCardFan
12-20-2010, 11:05 AM
This is only true if the goal of the health care service providers is to get the resources to the people most effectively.

If the goal is profit, all of the rules change to serve this end.

So what you're saying is that a highly specialized and very expensive procedure should be done for free? :rolleyes:

Adam Wood
12-20-2010, 11:19 AM
Oh, here's an all-time favorite moonbat that I haven't seen in a while.

Undergroundpanther (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x41711#43083):
undergroundpanther (1000+ posts) Mon Dec-20-10 02:16 AM
Response to Original message
26. how many hearts

Did cheney the bigoted war criminal get until there was that pump thing installed? What GOOD has he done for ANYONE else? He is a criminal,a bully a piece of shit. WHY do we let him get away with life after all the monstrous crimes against humanity he has done or let happen, or colluded with?
WHY does he get help denied others so casually? What makes him better than anyone else? NOTHING, Cheney is a moral inferior to most human beings,he is a sociopath that does not deserve anything but to pay for the damages he causes and if it means he dies,oh well.
None, you fucking dolt. Cheney has never had a heart transplant. Meanwhile, you suck up resources getting your taxpayer-funded cosmetic surgery to look like a cat because you're a fucked-up moonbat who won't get the proper therapy and psychiatric drugs to make sure you understand that you are not a cat, not even after they implanted "whiskers" in your cheeks. Idiot.



What will the DUmmies do when they find out that the real concern regarding an organ transplant is far less the financial ability to pay and far more happening upon an unfortunate donor in time. THEN what are they going to do?

Wei Wu Wei
12-20-2010, 11:21 AM
So what you're saying is that a highly specialized and very expensive procedure should be done for free? :rolleyes:

that's impossible.

i'm saying we should, as a society, rethink what's important and re-prioritize our spending.

Adam Wood
12-20-2010, 11:22 AM
So what you're saying is that a highly specialized and very expensive procedure should be done for free? :rolleyes:

And profits are evil.

m00
12-20-2010, 11:26 AM
This is only true if the goal of the health care service providers is to get the resources to the people most effectively.

If the goal is profit, all of the rules change to serve this end.

Right, and if you take the same number of resources and stretch it to a greater number of people, the resources-per-person goes down. That's all we're seeing.

Wei Wu Wei
12-20-2010, 11:37 AM
And profits are evil.

profits function in their own way and sometimes that is beneficial (for consumer goods, entertainment products, commodities that have endless variations, $90 sneakers, and exceptional variety and opportunity for both consumers and owners of small businesses)

sometimes it is not beneficial (when it's a social need and the profit motive runs contrary to the social goal). for example, NASA research or health care.


the world doesn't have to be simply black and white, good and evil.

profits have their place, they work in their own way, sometimes they are more useful sometimes they are less useful.

it also depends on who it is. sometimes a thing is better for a minority of individuals, while worse for society. sometimes things are better for society, but for a small group of individuals it's not so great. sometimes things are great for both or bad for both.


simple reductions like "profits are evil" or "rich people suck!" are actually quite ignorant and useless.

Wei Wu Wei
12-20-2010, 11:41 AM
Right, and if you take the same number of resources and stretch it to a greater number of people, the resources-per-person goes down. That's all we're seeing.

lol no it's not. we have a profit-based health care system. it actually increases profits to raise prices too high. not only does that generate profits but it creates an entirely new market for people who cannot afford such high prices: insurance companies. the insurance business only operates at a profit by maximizing how much you pay into it and minimizing how much benefits are paid out.

it should be obvious how this system benefits the owners of the company at the expense of people who need access to health care.

m00
12-20-2010, 11:48 AM
lol no it's not. we have a profit-based health care system. it actually increases profits to raise prices too high.

What? No. If prices are too high nobody buys your service. This is exactly the reason insurance companies tried to get out of covering cancer treatments in the 1980s. It's damn expensive, not for any artificial reason... but because the treatments are simply expensive due to the cost of the machines, the cost of radiology, and the expertise required in the medical personnel. It has nothing to do with inflated costs.

Now what does inflate costs is the drug companies, and medical malpractice suits (and that doctors need malpractice insurance). But this is a completely separate issue from the nuts-and-bolts cost of an operation.

Wei Wu Wei
12-20-2010, 11:59 AM
What? No. If prices are too high nobody buys your service.

unless there is a thriving insurance industry owned and operated by the same group of profiteers (which there is).


This is exactly the reason insurance companies tried to get out of covering cancer treatments in the 1980s. It's damn expensive, not for any artificial reason... but because the treatments are simply expensive due to the cost of the machines, the cost of radiology, and the expertise required in the medical personnel. It has nothing to do with inflated costs.

Now what does inflate costs is the drug companies, and medical malpractice suits (and that doctors need malpractice insurance). But this is a completely separate issue from the nuts-and-bolts cost of an operation.

It can be done cheaply. I've posted several threads with dozens of studies and graphs from numerous health organizations that shows that other industrialized countries are able to treat far more % of people for a far lower cost. Of course every time I provide facts people brush it off as "liberal scientists" or "socialist organizations" or better yet they never even read the damn studies because i'm posting it therefore IT IS THE ENEMY AND MUST BE WRONG. :rolleyes:


granted, some things like organ transplants and cancer treatment are very expensive, this is true. however if you just look at the profits generated by drug or insurance companies and realize that their main objective is to maximize profits, you see that serving people is a secondary goal.

if their main objective was to serve people, their profits would be low or non-existent, but all those extra billion dollars of profit could cover the cost of treatment for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people.


profits are not inherently evil, but there are sometimes when the social goal needs to be #1, not profits. if you are designing clothes or handbags or cars, sure let profits do the talking - but if you are providing necessary health care for people, profits should not be your main goal.

m00
12-20-2010, 12:11 PM
profits are not inherently evil, but there are sometimes when the social goal needs to be #1, not profits. if you are designing clothes or handbags or cars, sure let profits do the talking - but if you are providing necessary health care for people, profits should not be your main goal.

So Siemens (an evil profit driven corporation) makes a lot of medical equipment. Do you think the quality of their machines would be as good, if they weren't profit driven?

Wei Wu Wei
12-20-2010, 12:17 PM
1st - realistically speaking, mixed plans work best, combining profit-driven companies and service-driven providers. service-driven providers can buy mass quantities of medical equipment from profit-driven companies and then provide them to people at a low cost, rather than letting profits drive it all the way from start to finish.

There is no threat to American Capitalism. We will not dismantal the Capitalist system. There will be no revolution in the USA.

that is reality, but that doesn't mean we can't have some mixedd systems here or there in order to make public service the main goal.



That being said: Do you consider NASA work, research, and innovation to be poor quality? They are not profit driven.


There is one motivating force stronger than that of profit, but unfortunately it's much rarer - passion. No one goes to school for a decade working 60 hours a week in a laboratory for the money. You might know that most research scientists (as opposed to engineers, ect) are not exactly rolling around in cash. Most people who want to become researchers or doctors do it because they have a genuine passion for the science and/or for the people they are looking to serve. If a person loves their work and is dedicated their work, profits don't matter. The people who work at NASA do it because they love science. It's because of this personal passion that they've been able to do so much with relatively little funding (nothing compared to what banks get when they need to be bailed out).

m00
12-20-2010, 12:21 PM
That being said: Do you consider NASA work, research, and innovation to be poor quality? They are not profit driven.

The numerous (and I mean numerous) companies that NASA work gets contracted out to are definitely profit driven. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc... the guys that make the shuttle and the orbiters...definitely profit driven. Do you know how the government contract process works?

Wei Wu Wei
12-20-2010, 12:22 PM
Right. Like I said, realistically speaking in today's world, mixed approaches work best.

m00
12-20-2010, 12:26 PM
Right. Like I said, realistically speaking in today's world, mixed approaches work best.

A "mixed" approach in healthcare would be a government regulatory body that set health standards and managed contracts for research. Healthcare providers would then have to adhere to standards of the profession, and follow the regulations. But the providers themselves would be private industry. But this is exactly how things worked before Obama's healthcare bill. We actually got the worst of both worlds with that.

Molon Labe
12-20-2010, 12:31 PM
That being said: Do you consider NASA work, research, and innovation to be poor quality? They are not profit driven.


I would suggest that of all the "breakthroughs" NASA has achieved in 50 years, that a private entity could have achieved more in half the time. But that's not going to happen when you have the monopoly
See Richard Branson

m00
12-20-2010, 12:53 PM
I guess Wei Wu Wei went to another thread. :p

AmPat
12-20-2010, 01:40 PM
anneboleyn (1000+ posts) Sun Dec-19-10 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I am truly horrified by how literal this has become. Be rich, or die. Or in the real world of sanity; the result of liberal/"progressive" insistance on forcing govt-socialist health care on Americans, thereby leading to the inevitable "death panels" that the same ridiculed Sarah Palin for exposing.
Reap what you sow you liberal morons.:mad:

Wei Wu Wei
12-20-2010, 03:27 PM
A "mixed" approach in healthcare would be a government regulatory body that set health standards and managed contracts for research. Healthcare providers would then have to adhere to standards of the profession, and follow the regulations. But the providers themselves would be private industry. But this is exactly how things worked before Obama's healthcare bill. We actually got the worst of both worlds with that.

How about a single payer health care provider that guaranteed an enormous market for whichever private drug companies or medical supply companies could meet the needs for the goal of maximum service first at the lowest cost second? Private companies making and providing the resources for the public service entity. That's a mix.

How about a Public health insurance plan that runs non-profit to provide a low cost alternative to skyrocketing private insurance plans? That's a mix too.


Every time someone talks about Obama's health care bill they seem to be talking about an entirely different thing, so could you please explain how this bill disrupts the private system?

Wei Wu Wei
12-20-2010, 03:31 PM
I would suggest that of all the "breakthroughs" NASA has achieved in 50 years, that a private entity could have achieved more in half the time. But that's not going to happen when you have the monopoly
See Richard Branson

what monopoly? the reason private companies aren't shelling out billions of dollars to send people to the moon is because there is nothing on the moon.

NASA projects have been important for space research, defense projects, and communications. the only one here with room for private entrepreneurship is communications but most of the major communications innovations came as by-products of the space race.

cell phone technology and GPS is great, but that's not what anyone had in mind half a century ago when we were pioneering these technologies.


the free market doesn't always produce the best solutions for all problems.