Health Care is a right

allnurses Guide · Sep 11, 2009

Of course i know. I am smart enough to be a nurse. :nurse:

I was responding to the post just previous to mine:

Originally Posted by K98

You obviously have never been a government employee. I have. There is NO way any private entity could waste resources (cash) like the government. Business is in business to make a

profit.

Government does not have to make a profit. When they make bad decisions or waste money, they just dig deeper into YOUR pockets.

It is not OK to steal. It is also not OK to allow people to die based on fine print in a contract stating the company had the right to change the conditions of that contract Denial of care sometimes causes death for the sake of profit.

It is immoral. It needs to be illegal.

ozoneranger · Sep 11, 2009

Of course i know. I am smart enough to be a nurse.
I was responding to the post just previous to mine:
Originally Posted by K98
You obviously have never been a government employee. I have. There is NO way any private entity could waste resources (cash) like the government. Business is in business to make a
profit.
Government does not have to make a profit. When they make bad decisions or waste money, they just dig deeper into YOUR pockets.

It is not OK to steal. It is also not OK to allow people to die based on fine print in a contract stating the company had the right to change the conditions of that contract Denial of care sometimes causes death for the sake of profit.

It is immoral. It needs to be illegal.

So, we're debating which is worse, a government run program filled with graft, corruption, neglect & death in VA run facilities (just an example)......and you can't sue the govt, you do know that....right?

Against a corporation that can be sued for possibly attempting to alter a legally binding contract, and when sued, and found guilty will face penalties reaching in the millions?

At least you have a the legal system in place to force the business sector into honoring the contract through litigation.

Try that with the govt.......and let me know how that works out for ya....

K?

allnurses Guide · Sep 11, 2009

Widow Settles Suit Over Husband's Surgical Care Death at VA Hospital...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,532580,00.html

Of course by the time a person is dead a lawsuit will not bring them back.

But denial of care the person already paif for, sometimes for years is morally wrong but not yet illegal.

Whe physicians stated the 17 year old had a 65% chance of recovery with a transplant and Cigna refused to pay until weeks later (when there was a large protest on TV) it was too late.

Her insurance premiums had been paid her whole life.

Winning a law suit will not bring her back.

Pacificare routinely denies nearly 40% of claims.

K98 · Sep 11, 2009

Widow Settles Suit Over Husband's Surgical Care Death at VA Hospital...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,532580,00.html
Of course by the time a person is dead a lawsuit will not bring them back.
But denial of care the person already paif for, sometimes for years is morally wrong but not yet illegal.
Whe physicians stated the 17 year old had a 65% chance of recovery with a transplant and Cigna refused to pay until weeks later (when there was a large protest on TV) it was too late.
Her insurance premiums had been paid her whole life.
Winning a law suit will not bring her back.
Pacificare routinely denies nearly 40% of claims.

What makes you think the govt. will deny any fewer?

nicurn001 · Sep 11, 2009

The government ( bythe way which part of the government are you referring to ) , will not be involved in individual healthcare decisions . Do you honestly believe , the government will set up boards that will discuss an individuals healthcare needs and decide on that individuals care ?.

Like private insurers , the government will come to a decision what funds are available to fund healthcare , but unlike private insurers they will not be involved in any preapproval decision for an individual care .If a service is available you will given an appointment when the service is available , wheras if the insurer denies your treatment were will you turn . Oh I forgot , you will sue , but how are you going to get around the arbitration clause , hidden away in your policy ?

K98 · Sep 12, 2009

The government ( bythe way which part of the government are you referring to ) , will not be involved in individual healthcare decisions . Do you honestly believe , the government will set up boards that will discuss an individuals healthcare needs and decide on that individuals care ?.
Like private insurers , the government will come to a decision what funds are available to fund healthcare , but unlike private insurers they will not be involved in any preapproval decision for an individual care .If a service is available you will given an appointment when the service is available , wheras if the insurer denies your treatment were will you turn . Oh I forgot , you will sue , but how are you going to get around the arbitration clause , hidden away in your policy ?

Government doesn't need to worry about funds. They run low, they develop new "revenue streams" (taxes).

ozoneranger · Sep 12, 2009

The government ( bythe way which part of the government are you referring to ) , will not be involved in individual healthcare decisions . Do you honestly believe , the government will set up boards that will discuss an individuals healthcare needs and decide on that individuals care ?.
Like private insurers , the government will come to a decision what funds are available to fund healthcare , but unlike private insurers they will not be involved in any preapproval decision for an individual care .If a service is available you will given an appointment when the service is available , wheras if the insurer denies your treatment were will you turn . Oh I forgot , you will sue , but how are you going to get around the arbitration clause , hidden away in your policy ?

So, you don't think the government will pull the strings?

http://www.wral.com/golo/blogpost/5755842/

No, no, no, they would never do that.

nicurn001 · Sep 12, 2009

Government doesn't need to worry about funds. They run low, they develop new "revenue streams" (taxes).

Although that is possible , the development of new revenue streams is limited by what the electorate will accept ( after all the politicians , always look to see how their reelection prospects are effected , by a policy change ) or what lenders are prepared to allow .So as I said "the government will come to a decision what funds are available to fund healthcare " , the significant part being " WHAT FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE " , that being a political decision upon the level of allocation of funds available to government to healthcare .

Ozoneranger , of course government , as would private insurers , will pull strings to effect policies , but they would not get involved in decisions regarding an individuals healthcare , or they would end up in many controversial decisions such as the Terri Schiavo case , The democrats will surely have learned from that intervention in personal healthcare decisions , by the Bush administration.

ozoneranger · Sep 12, 2009

although that is possible , the development of new revenue streams is limited by what the electorate will accept ( after all the politicians , always look to see how their reelection prospects are effected , by a policy change ) or what lenders are prepared to allow .so as i said "the government will come to a decision what funds are available to fund healthcare " , the significant part being " what funds are available " , that being a political decision upon the level of allocation of funds available to government to healthcare .
ozoneranger , of course government , as would private insurers , will pull strings to effect policies , but they would not get involved in decisions regarding an individuals healthcare , or they would end up in many controversial decisions such as the terri schiavo case , the democrats will surely have learned from that intervention in personal healthcare decisions , by the bush administration.

really, you don't think they'd get "involved?"

oregon has no problem denying cancer treatments to patients, physician assisted suicide is much cheaper.

the oregon health plan was conceived and realized by emergency room doctor john kitzhaber, then a state senator,[1] and dr. ralph crawshaw, a portland activist.[2]

it was intended to make health care more available to the working poor, while rationing benefits.[1] at the time, oregon was considered a national leader in health care reform.[3] the law passed in oregon was not initially compatible with federal law, so a waiver was needed. president bill clinton approved the plan on march 20, 1993, though he required a revision to the plan due to a concern about whether disabled people would have equal access.[4] at the time, medicaid covered 240,000 oregonians.[4]

in 1994, the plan's first year of operation, nearly 120,000 new members signed up, and bad debts at portland hospitals dropped 16%.[1]

the plan's costs increased from $1.33 billion in 1993-1995 to $2.36 billion in 1999-2001.[1] significant cuts were made to the oregon health plan's budget in 2003.[5]

[b]new enrollment in the program were closed from mid-2004[6] until early 2008, when a lottery-based system was introduced. tens of thousands of oregonians signed up, competing for 3,000 new spots in the plan.[7][8][/b]

the legal foundation for the ohp is generally spelled out in chapter 414 of the oregon revised statutes.[9]

the oregon health plan became the focus of national scrutiny in 2003, after deep budget cuts led to 100,000 people in mental health and/or substance abuse treatment losing prescription coverage under the program.[12]

this year and last, the oregon health plan stirred up controversy when enforcing 1994 guidelines[13] to only cover comfort care, and not to cover cancer treatment such as chemotherapy, surgery and radiotherapy for patients with less than a 5% chance of survival over five years.[14]

springfield resident barbara wagner said her oncologist prescribed the chemotherapy drug tarceva for her lung cancer, but that oregon health plan officials sent her a letter declining coverage for the drug, and informing her that they will only pay for palliative care and physician-assisted suicide. she appealed the denial twice, but lost both times.[15] tarceva drugmaker genentech agreed to supply her the $4000-a-month[16] drug for free.[17] wagner's plight garnered a flurry of attention from the media,[18] the blogosphere,[19][20][21][22] and triggered protest from religious groups.[23][24][25] wagner died in october 2008.[26]

no, they'd never do that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/oregon_health_plan

allnurses Guide · Sep 12, 2009

I think I got the minimal facts straight.

Barbara Wagner was denied an expensive chemotherapeutic medication in June of 2008. There was news coverage in many newspapers and on nationwide TV news.

Genentech provided the medication to her so she would have a chance to live.

She died in October.

Maybe the stress of the denial and appeals hastened her death.

Maybe the medication prolonged her life.

Either way it is tough.

Early this year we lost a dear friend to lung cancer. She chose to forego chemotherapy and take a cruise with friends while she could enjoy it.

Her lifelong partner since age 18 had died of it just a year before her diagnosis. He mother and sister also died of lung cancer.

Truly sad. They were wonderful kind charitable and fun loving women.

ozoneranger · Sep 12, 2009

I think I got the minimal facts straight.
Barbara Wagner was denied an expensive chemotherapeutic medication in June of 2008. There was news coverage in many newspapers and on nationwide TV news.
Genentech provided the medication to her so she would have a chance to live.
She died in October.
Maybe the stress of the denial and appeals hastened her death.
Maybe the medication prolonged her life.
Either way it is tough.
Early this year we lost a dear friend to lung cancer. She chose to forego chemotherapy and take a cruise with friends while she could enjoy it.
Her lifelong partner since age 18 had died of it just a year before her diagnosis. He mother and sister also died of lung cancer.
Truly sad. They were wonderful kind charitable and fun loving women.

So, then, you're ok with the state denying benefits, rationing care, and you are ok with the offering of physician assisted suicide.....as long as it's the government in charge, and not an insurance company?

Well, alrighty then.

ozoneranger · Sep 12, 2009

" Early this year we lost a dear friend to lung cancer. She chose to forego chemotherapy and take a cruise with friends while she could enjoy it.

Her lifelong partner since age 18 had died of it just a year before her diagnosis. He mother and sister also died of lung cancer.

Truly sad. They were wonderful kind charitable and fun loving women."

How would you have felt if your friend had chosen to fight, what if she'd wanted the latest cutting edge had to offer, but instead, the government run system offered her physician assisted suicide instead?