Federal programs deny more claims than private insurance

There is a little known, little publicized fact that surrounds the periphery of the ObamaCare passage which I feel needs to be exposed. You have heard shameless politicians such as President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and others make claims that private insurance companies deny coverage and cause deaths because of it.

What none of these politicians will tell you is that the largest insurance claim denier in the United States is the federal government by way of Medicare. Shocking, no? The way we’re all told, the federal government treats absolutely everyone on Medicaid and Medicare and we’re told that ObamaCare will continue this high level of treatment.

I know, you’re thinking they deny the largest number of claims because they have the most enrolled. It is true they have the most enrolled as opposed to private insurance, however, it the proportional percentage of denied claims which is astonishing since it is higher than every private insurance company.

Medicare denied nearly 500,000 claims, the most of any “insurance” program, public or private. It also has the highest percentage of denials at 6.85%, again the highest of any “insurance” program, public or private.

The source for these numbers of the American Medical Association’s 2008 report card. Available here as a PDF.

More from NewsBusters:

The Medicare denial rate found in the study was, on a weighted average basis, roughly 1.7 times that of all of the private carriers combined (99,025 divided by 2,447,216 is 4.05%; 6.85% divided by 4.05% =1.69).

You would think Medicare’s sheer size might enable it to have smoother procedures with its providers that would enable it to turn down a lower percentage of claims. But no, this is the government we’re talking about.

So who’s the most “heartless” now? And why should Americans accept the idea of gradually being forced into a government-run system when, based on documented government experience, they will be more likely to see their claims denied?

This stat has been around for a while now but it is rarely mentioned. Therefore, I felt the need to add to the available sources listing it.

The bottom line here is that even ObamaCare will deny coverage the same way Medicare does, the same way private insurance does. ObamaCare will not guarantee coverage and it will let patients down simply due to government bureaucracy and enormous cost.

Do not be fooled into thinking you cannot be denied coverage or have a claim denied by a government-run program, it will happen to millions of people under ObamaCare and yet we’ll be paying taxes every which way to afford for it.

Here is an excellent example of the travesty of Medicaid from CBS 4 in Florida:

FORT LAUDERDALE (CBS4) ? A woman battling a cancer battle was dealt a surprise blow by Uncle Sam this month.

Diana Smith has gone through six months of radiation and chemotherapy — one week out of every month. She is in remission and had a donor for a transplant; being in remission is prerequisite for the transplant.

But her hopes of receiving the transplant were dashed in March, when she says, the Social Security Administration contacted her –without her soliciting it — and told her that her three year-old son was entitled to receive Social Security disability payments. Even though she didn’t ask for it, she signed the form and received her son’s first check check.

In April, Medicaid canceled her universal health care policy because her income level had risen with her son’s payments – making her ineligible for the insurance program.

The problem is Jackson Memorial Hospital cannot provide the procedure because the risk is too high. The universal policy from Medicaid helps shield the hospital from liability in this kind of case. Without it, they are subject to liability issues.

Even though Smith offered to cancel her son’s disability benefits, she was told it’s too late.

“She’s gone through six months worth of radiation and chemo, her body can’t take anymore. If they don’t allow her to have this transplant coming up right now next week, they’re in effect signing her death warrant,” said her friend Tom Noonan.

“I want to live to see my son grow up and get on with my life,” Smith told CBS4’s Ted Scouten.

This is a textbook case which involves much of the health care reform debate.

1) She was dropped from Medicaid during a time when she was receiving important, life-saving treatments for cancer. Sound familiar? This is what charlatans like Obama accuse private insurance of doing all the time.

2) The hospital, due to fear of lawsuits, would not offer her the procedure even if she paid cash privately. Once again, sound familiar? We need tort reform to stop frivolous lawsuits so a hospital, such as in this case, will not fear doing the procedure for cash without Medicaid’s indemnity clause.

3) Medicaid is a faceless government program run by fools following the numbers and the flow charts for how care is administered and when coverage is given or denied. Once again, this is what ObamaCare will be and it isn’t good.

The argument that we need government insurance to replace private insurance due to denied claims or dropped coverage is nonsense and this proves it.

  • Looking at percentages of denied claims doesn’t really give us a look at what is being denied, and thus doesn’t give us sufficient information to make a decision about the quality of the insurance.

    If the denied claims are that for blood pressure medication in hypertensive patients, ok, that is bad. If the denied claims are more towards elective care then it’s not a bad thing.

    As far as the situation with the woman in Florida, that is unfortunate but I wont denounce medicaid because of an fluke incidence. The fact that the woman has cancer, depending on which type I’m sure Florida gives medicaid simply for that reason outside of her income. I’m sure there is more to that story then what was reported. I live in Florida and we give medicaid/medicare to more people than who actually need it. It is severely abused by people as well.

    By abused I mean by young people without chronic conditions outside of their drug and alcohol use. Those who physically can work and pay for insurance but choose not to because they know loop holes or people who work for government agencies who can get them the “hook-up” with medicaid or medicare.

    As I said, it’s unfortunate what happened to the woman in the article you posted but I don’t snub my nose at medicare/medicaid because of it. It does work for many people and yes it does have its problems as well, as with anything else.

  • “As I said, it’s unfortunate what happened to the woman in the article you posted but I don’t snub my nose at medicare/medicaid because of it.”

    So I’ll assume you give private insurance the same courtesy despite Obama’s stories of denied treatment? I assume you don’t similarly snub your nose at Blue Cross, Anthem, Aetna, Cigna, Humana and the rest, correct?

    Just trying to establish a baseline for when it is acceptable to demonize health care plans and when it is not.

  • JD

    You can’t give the same baseline for the private insurace because the reason why people are on medicaid is because they can’t get private insurance.

    What you are fogetting are all the people that the private industry “denied” by turning them down to even get a policy from them. Shouldn’t that count as well? However, it isn’t tracked and not apart of your statistic.

  • Nate,

    You are correct. I do not snub my nose at private insurance either. I snub it at isolated incidents, just like the woman who did not get her cancer treatment.

    I also snub my nose at health care i general when the individual who could not afford health insurance and is denied cancer treatment and thus dies. This happened to someone on the street in live in RIGHT NOW! I was that mans nurse as well, ironic. He had leukemia, he worked full time as a laborer working on construction sites. The job did not pay much, nor did it offer medical insurance. Since he could not afford chemotherapy they referred him to hospital and medicated him for pain while his father sat and watched his son die.

    So this is what I snub my nose at. I know Nate, it is NOT fair for the rich to pay for the poor to get medical treatment. But in the cases of your news article and my person experience, what do we do? Perhaps we should look to Canada and see what they would do. Would your woman and my gentleman die in Canada?

    When is it OK to demonize a health plan? I don’t know, I demonize health care in general. You say the woman had the money to pay for the procedure without the health plan and the hospital would refuse anyway due to liability that they could have had waived with one piece of paper and the patients signature.

    Nate, I say demonize the health care system, not the health care plan on that one buddy, wouldn’t you?

    “2) The hospital, due to fear of lawsuits, would not offer her the procedure even if she paid cash privately. ” your article

  • “Since he could not afford chemotherapy they referred him to hospital and medicated him for pain while his father sat and watched his son die.”

    What I meant to say is that they referred this patient to “HOSPICE” and watched him die instead of giving him the treatment. I read in this chart that the patient had a favorable prognosis if the chemotherapy was given. So the physicians on his case believe he would come through and beat the cancer if they could afford the chemotherapy.

  • D.D.Mao

    Why is it the left always LOOKS TO CANADA FOR HEALTH CARE? THIS PAST FEBRUARY 3RD CANANDIAN NEWFOUNDLAND PREMIER DANNY WILLIAMS ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF HIS CANADIAN DOCTORS CAME TO THE UNITED STATES FOR HEART SURGURY.HE JOINED 41,000 OTHER CANADIANS WHO CAME HERE IN 2009 DUE TO WAITING LIST (AND GET THIS )POOR ACCESS TO HEALTH BENEFITS IN CANADA.

  • “Would your woman and my gentleman die in Canada?”

    They might die due to long wait times to get treatment or a denial of treatment due to cost. Canada is not a model we need to point to, it has massive doctor shortages, nurse shortages and is struggling much the same way ObamaCare will be struggling.

    Also, America still has the greatest, most advanced health care system in the world and government interference will ruin that, not expand it.


    “You can’t give the same baseline for the private insurace because the reason why people are on medicaid is because they can’t get private insurance.”

    I see. So the fact that Medicare, a government-run insurance plan, denies more claims and treatments than any private insurance company is fine since we can’t find stats for Medicaid.

    Let me know when it is OK to chastise Medicare and the charlatans criticizing private insurance for denying claims while Medicare does it more than anyone.

    Medicaid is managed by the states and each state follows different levels of the government mandate. Virginia has the minimum Medicaid requirement whereas New York probably goes well above and beyond the federal mandate. Therefore, the guidelines vary from state to state involving coverage, denials, etc… Hard to find concrete stats covering the country concerning Medicaid.

    Again though, don’t let that get in the way of the actual statistics we already have on Medicare being the biggest claim and treatment denier in the country.

  • JD

    Nate, Medicare is the same thing. Do you think a 70 year old could afford private insurance? Let me remind you that the majority of the Healthcare you recieve right now is paid by your employer.

    So when you aren’t employed anymore as are the elderly thier price goes up not only because they aren’t apart of a group but because they are old and a liability for disease and organ failures. So they are hit 2 fold. 90% of people can not afford this on retirement money. Simple fact.

    Another reason why Medicare is the largest insurer. So again, the private industry denies the procedures by denying coverage using astronomical premiums that they can’t afford.

    Just incase you think about mentioning pension, let me remind you that retirement packages in the US have seen a 40%+ reduction. So people like you and I are less and less likely to see such things.

    If you can’t see these facts then it is only because you have not been efected by them but rest assured you will and on that day you will eat every single word or you will find some way to blame the very goverment who tried to help.

  • Holy hell I can’t believe the reaction. I do not put Canada on a platform to be the ideal country, I just chose 1. My comments point had nothing to do with Canada being better than the US, and for you to think so means you must feel that you can not attack the point itself but you’d rather argue with me on pointless BS. DD Mao, your post was worthless, as I said my comments were not meant to defend Canada, the mentioning of Canada was simply something to think about, nothing more, as the meant of my comment was not surrounded by Canada nor socialized medicine.

    “Also, America still has the greatest, most advanced health care system in the world and government interference will ruin that, not expand it. ”

    If it is the greatest why even try and bring up the dying woman. She obviously could not afford to buy her own private insurance otherwise why did she have government health insurance? SO say there was no government intervention and medicaid/medicare did not exist. She would have not had any insurance at all and would not have gotten the treatment she had gotten up until the point of the article. Again you are not truly replying to my comment as a whole, you are simply trying to bash Canada and say the US is superior, we are no longer on the womans or my mans dilemma.

    “I see. So the fact that Medicare, a government-run insurance plan, denies more claims and treatments than any private insurance company is fine since we can’t find stats for Medicaid. ” Nate

    No, if you show me that Medicare denies claims that are important and vital for patients would be ground for fighting against Medicare. But you gave me percentages of denied claims which means nothing to me. I have had elective procedures done while I had United Health care. I didn’t need to have them done as they truly we not needed but it did give me the satisfaction I wanted. UHC did not deny those claims, but if they had, would I denounce UHC, no, I would have sought another angle to get the same satifaction.

    Once I had a colonoscopy and upper endoscopy because my hemoglobin was not within normal range. Did I need that, nope. At the time I was a chronic alcohol drinker and I ate many foods that cause gastritis which could had lead to my low hemoglobin as my hemoglobin was not so low as to suggest a gastrointestinal bleed, in fact it was almost normal. Now would medicare have paid for the procedures? I don’t know, but if they didn’t I would not denounce them for it.

    Another time I fell down the stairs at my friend home. I had an X-Ray and CT Scan that showed no damage to my spine or vertebra. I had a lump on my lower back though that I was nervous of. A week later they did an ultrasound and MRI which again only showed soft tissue damage.

    The Ultra sound may have not been over the top, but the MRI was completely unwarranted and VERY expensive. My insurance UHC paid for it IN FULL, nothing out of pocket. I am sure medicare would NOT have paid for that MRI.

    Ok, nate this was my point. Since all we have here are percentages, I can not set some sort of baseline argument against medicare, now if you show specific claims such as my situation then sure. I am not trying to discredit you in any way nate, I am just saying that before I will say something is bad, I have to see what is bad about it. Percentages of denied claims could be a good thing on Medicares behalf for not paying for elective procedures.

    I believe I stated elective procedures being one of the problems with health care today. If you want an elective procedure, you should pay for it out of your pocket, not allow insurance companies to do so. If insurance companies pay for needless procedures then the COST of insurance will surely rise, wont it? Correct me if I am wrong please.

    “Let me know when it is OK to chastise Medicare and the charlatans criticizing private insurance for denying claims while Medicare does it more than anyone. ” Nate

    I believe I just did above. I can go further. Show me where medicare will refuse to insure someone because of pre-existing conditions, or make someone pay exponentially more money for the insurance policy because of their chronic conditions such as Diabetes, and I will tell you to burn medicare to the ground. I am not saying medicare does not do those things because I have no researched that but if you show me that, I will say down with Whitey! lol

    “Again though, don’t let that get in the way of the actual statistics we already have on Medicare being the biggest claim and treatment denier in the country. ” Nate

    I can only say again, that percentages versus WHY A CLAIM IS DENIED is a big deal here, I hope you can understand that. I would not ask medicare to approve claims for worthless procedures simply on the ground of making their percentages of denied claims look competitive, that would be wrong, would it not?

  • JD,

    I cans see the rebuttal to your comment now. Save money now and you will have a golden life later. It’s not conservatives fault that poor old people can’t afford health care coverage, they should have saved their money. They should have not gotten diabetes or COPD related to their career in those factories. They should have lived in a bubble with their computers and played the stock market and became independently wealthy so when they get old they can have all the money like Ebenezer Scrooge.

    To that I say nothing, because it is not worth commenting on. To each their own. We all should fight diligently for what we believe in. If we differ in our beliefs, who cares, we must fight on!

    Hey JD, want to join forces against the conservatives? LOL
    (Just in case someone took that joke serious, it was only a joke, I am not trying to team up with JD to fight anyone, unless its for health care that is)

  • JD

    Kendale and JD = team awesome and right

    all others that appose = team stupid and wrong.

    hahaha… now i sound like a republican. It felt good to step in thier shoes for a second and I can see why people enjoy the republican side. Too bad it is completely a wrong headed approach to our nation’s problems.

  • Where to begin.. too much nonsense to sort through. Honestly I just don’t have that much time so I will skim your comments and respond generally in easy-to-quote points.

    1) Nobody should rely on pensions or some other retirement system, plan for yourself from your 20s for retirement and you will be fine. Only short-sighted people live life depending on government retirement and government health care.

    2) I know many people firsthand who are elderly and could afford private insurance yet they’re forced on Medicare. JD that is a stupid argument to say that elderly can’t afford medical care, many of them can but they’re forced onto Medicare.

    3) You are still giving Medicare a pass which I find pathetic since you can whine about private insurance but sit here and defend the government up and down. You aren’t fooling anyone or disputing the facts, only trying to spin them or explain them away yet there they are, still sitting in black and white undisputed since they’re facts.

    4) Of course some claims are frivolous, that isn’t the point. Not even speaking of those since it applies to private insurance and Medicare.

    Finally…

    To respond to this specifically:

    “If you can’t see these facts then it is only because you have not been efected by them but rest assured you will and on that day you will eat every single word or you will find some way to blame the very goverment who tried to help.”

    Now you sound like the arrogant jackasses we have in congress. You condescendingly tell me that you know best for me down the road and what situation you think I will be in. You know nothing of what is best for me or anyone else for that matter. You take care of you for once, stop letting the government do it.

    You’re both under the foolish impression that someday everyone ends up in the same boat. At some point, you wrongly believe that we all can’t afford something and must rely on the government. I understand, you have been brainwashed and told that story by liberal politicians. Well friends, that isn’t true. Some people, specifically those who don’t depend on the government, do choose to plan for themselves and take care of themselves. They don’t need you, your guidance or help from the government. Those people scare you, I’m know, because they don’t need your advice on what government program you think they need.

  • JD

    Nate, I am not arrogant…I hope you turn down medicare when you get older but some how I doubt you will do it. Ironic.

    None the less, how are people forced to get medicare? Again, teach the system a lesson and deny medicare when you get older!! I know you planned for it right?

  • “3) You are still giving Medicare a pass which I find pathetic since you can whine about private insurance but sit here and defend the government up and down. You aren’t fooling anyone or disputing the facts, only trying to spin them or explain them away yet there they are, still sitting in black and white undisputed since they’re facts. ” Nate

    As I stated before, I do not whine about health insurance, I complain about health care in general.

    “4) Of course some claims are frivolous, that isn’t the point. Not even speaking of those since it applies to private insurance and Medicare. ” – Nate

    So you don’t care what claim are denied, you just want to “whine” about the percentage of claims denied by medicare. Ok, if that’s what you’re into, but it is worthless in my eyes. Who cares? It doesn’t help anyone. So wait maybe you are just whining to say you caught Obama in something because HE complains about health insurance so you are giving your weak rebuttal to his complaints by complaining about Medicare having a high denial percentage, again why? What does that help? What does it prove?

    “You’re both under the foolish impression that someday everyone ends up in the same boat.” – Nate

    Why would I think everyone ends up in the same boat? I am not in the same boat now, and I wont be then. You’ve got me wrong on that one. I know I am very low on the financial totem poll. I am fighting hard with my education to earn money and save for my future and I don’t depend on the government to do for me because I don’t qualify for their assistance anyway. The little money they gave me by the way of Pell Grants, I’ve paid more than that in federal taxes, so I don’t feel guilty about that.

    You are way out of in to tell me that I have been brainwashed to believe that we need the government to finance us, because I don’t believe that, if I did I would quit my job, drop out of school, get on public housing, get food stamps, cash assistance, and live free. I can do that right now if I wanted, I know it. Do I do that? No. I work my butt off to pay my bills and pay for my own college now. So for you to sit there and say that is absurd.

    I don’t give you advice. So I am assuming you are not referring to me at all.

    If you want people who can not afford insurance to die, by all means that is your right to desire. I will fight for what I believe in. You do the same. but don’t put words in my mouth and don’t you tell me what I believe. You don’t know me outside of what is said on this website. I don’t tell you what you believe or what to believe, I don’t make assumption about you, so don’t do it to me.

    All I stated was that you percentages tell us nothing more then percentages of claims denied and that it appears you made an assumption based on them. I find that to be in error. If you think that medicare is bad because it denies a larger percentage of claims than private insurance, then so be it. I disagree.

    Peace

  • TheGreatZ

    Clearly we can’t trust the government or private companies.

    What if we did something really radical?

    If a doctor and other necessary medical personnel decide they want to operate on a patient who can’t pay don’t charge them with a crime if they use the hospital’s resources to do the operation or dispense medication(as long as it is medically necessary) even though the patient wasn’t approved.

    The bureaucracies that run the government and the private insurance companies and even individual hospitals typically do not see the patient firsthand. The doctor does. The personal connection makes it harder to deny care when otherwise a person might die. Right now doctors hands are tied because it is illegal for them to operate if the patient is unable to pay and their insurance(government or not) denies them.

    To add further protection we could have an independent board of medical professionals review the case to decide whether the treatment is medically necessary.

    Even further protection can be added by allowing a “medical necessity” defense to the charge of theft of services in court if the board denies it in spite of it being medically necessary and the defense shows enough evidence in court that it was necessary.

    The doctor’s job and pay and benefits should also be protected from being taken away or reduced because of his/her decision.

    You would see cases of people dying from denial of care disappear.

  • “If a doctor and other necessary medical personnel decide they want to operate on a patient who can’t pay don’t charge them with a crime if they use the hospital’s resources to do the operation or dispense medication(as long as it is medically necessary) even though the patient wasn’t approved.” TheGreatZ

    Physicians DO perform operations on patients who can not pay. And those patients DO use hospital resources and receive medication without paying. Non for profit hospitals do that every day. It’s we as tax payers who flip the bill for the hospitals resources. Now “for profit” hospitals take that poor person to court for the money.

    “The bureaucracies that run the government and the private insurance companies and even individual hospitals typically do not see the patient firsthand. The doctor does. The personal connection makes it harder to deny care when otherwise a person might die. Right now doctors hands are tied because it is illegal for them to operate if the patient is unable to pay and their insurance(government or not) denies them.” – TheGreatZ

    This is NOT true. I worked at a hospital that did surgeries on patients without insurance and could not pay. Especially when it is life threatening. If you get in a car accident and get ambulances to the emergency department, I believe it may actually be illegal to not operate on that person if it is medically necessary in order to save that persons life.

    I have had TWO surgeries while not having insurance and not much way to pay much more than $20 a month towards the bill for the rest of my life.

    “To add further protection we could have an independent board of medical professionals review the case to decide whether the treatment is medically necessary.” The GreatZ

    I thought hospitals have such a group of people to decide just that, I could be wrong. Generally many hospitals have Medical Residents, lead by attending physicians, who do just that. Medical residents generally take the cases of patients who do not have insurance, it’s how they learn to because REAL doctors. 🙂

  • TheGreatZ

    Kendale, you and I are talking about different things.

    I’m not talking about emergency room care, I’m talking outside the emergency room. NOT everything is allowed in the emergency room even if it is needed to save your life. They will not give you chemo through the emergency room for example. They don’t consider cancer to be an emergency until you’re in some kind of convulsion. People DO die because they are denied care. That is a fact. And taxes only go for this kind of care. I’m talking about preventative, BUT medically necessary operations like chemo.

    I’m also not suggesting that in my idea taxes would have to go for the free preventative care, but instead the hospital administration would just not be compensated for the resources used by the doctors and other medical personnel when they decide to operate for free on those that can’t pay. Accepting that as an operating cost would just be another part of the business.

  • ok, I’m to drunk to reply fully. But not many insurances, including medicare/medicaid will pay for “preventative care” and I was also NOT talking About ER only.

    Hospitals and physicians order 10’s of thousands of dollars worth of useless things for patient who have no insurance.

    You’re right, if you have no insurance you wont get Chemotherapy. That is on the far end of the spectrum of health care. I’ve seen patients die from cancer because they have no insurance, as a matter of fact you commented on the same thread that I spoke about that on.

    I’m not defending health care, because I am all for reform due to the fact that health care is NOT something all people can receive in ALL situations, those such as cancer.

    I’ll leave it there for now…

  • TheGreatZ

    It is exactly cases like chemotherapy that my proposal would fix. Its those cases that aren’t covered(and by covered I mean patient getting the treatment) that would be fixed.

  • The only way cancer patients with no money or insurance will get chemo is with Socialized Medicine. Or with a law that prevents insurance companies from denying patients with pre-existing conditions. Then again it’s still not likely to be affordable.

    More incentive to be married and on your spouses insurance, just in case you can no longer work and dying of the Big C

  • Bill Hedges

    Taxes does not pay hospital bills not paid for by patients. Unless patient has government plan such as medicare or medicaid. It’s added to people bills like me who has insurance. You jack up my cost if you don’t pay. Ain’t nothing free.

    This free-be system of yours is not likely. Go to a free clinic but doubt they have Chemo. High malpractice insurance makes that unlikely/ impossible. Hospitals are not going to let Doctors do that. LAWSUITES. USE OF EQUIPTMENT, MATERIAL, ETC. Everyone involved would be fired if it leaked out..

    ER’s are for emergencies. Not saving lives due to terminal disease. They do immediate necessary care for those without insurance. That’s it. For more you’ll just have to buy insurance. Or wait to get sick in 4 years. Then hope to God they will help you then. Got luck there, Republicans were right, obama’s numbers are wrong.

  • And that piece of reality is what makes America so Great Bill. You sound like Satan reigning death and destruction upon the world. Death to the sick! Cast out ye leper into the woods to die with the others! God, conservatives are wonderful aren’t they?

  • Bill Hedges

    I was going to write a long comment documenting Doctors leaving profession over government regulation for too much expense per medicare patient (which cost Doctor money in fines), CBO preliminary numbers wrong because of double count material given them to use by Democrats as Republicans warned, medicare number show big extra cost compared to CBO preliminary, etc. But decided why.

  • http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/135077970.html

    ” CURRENT REGULATORY CLIMATE

    The core of the current not-for-profit problems is whether these hospitals provide community benefits that are substantial enough to justify their preferential tax status. All hospitals, whether for-profit or not-for-profit, must provide some level of charity care to be eligible for government reimbursements. However, not-for-profit hospitals are further burdened with the expectation of providing a community benefit equivalent to their expected tax burden. This expectation is an indirect tax levied against not-for-profit hospitals in the form of resource consumption (David 2003).

    More specifically, the government maintains that not-for-profit hospitals must justify their tax exemptions by performing community duties that the government would otherwise have to undertake. These duties still consume the resources of not-for-profit hospitals and thus can be considered an indirect tax. David (2003) argues that this expectation may be flawed, given that not-for-profit hospitals are induced to avoid overpaying these indirect resource-based taxes, much like for-profit entities are induced to minimize their own tax burden. ”

    Not for profit hospitals do charity cases as I said. Not just in the emergency department. They take on a number of patients who can not pay. As this article states, it is mandatory for them to do so in order to maintain their tax exemptions. They don’t give chemotherapy, at least no ones I have been to, but they do perform various surgeries. That was my point.

  • “All hospitals, whether for-profit or not-for-profit, must provide some level of charity care to be eligible for government reimbursements.”

  • “I was going to write a long comment documenting Doctors leaving profession over government regulation for too much expense per medicare patient (which cost Doctor money in fines), CBO preliminary numbers wrong because of double count material given them to use by Democrats as Republicans warned, medicare number show big extra cost compared to CBO preliminary, etc. But decided why. ” Bill

    In no way was I arguing or anywhere near referring to that topic with any of my comments.

  • Bill Hedges

    “No More Medicare at Mayo Clinic in Arizona”

    Non-profit…

    “The Mayo Clinic, praised by President Barack Obama as a national model for efficient health care, will stop accepting Medicare patients as of tomorrow at one of its primary-care clinics in Arizona, saying the U.S. government pays too little. “

    http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2010/01/no-more-medicare-at-mayo-clinic-in.html

  • You’re way of the issue that I was talking about. I’m going to watch television. Goodnight Bill.

  • of = off

  • Bill Hedges

    I was leaving comment to Z. Lucky if he will get the care in 2014 with less Doctors, hospitals, etc.

    There will be long waits and limited care just like OR, Canada, England, Austria, cuba, etc.

  • We shall see. I can’t wait. I’m always game to see controversial things unfold.

  • Bill Hedges

    Z

    OR has State health care

    “Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon”

    “Terminally Ill Denied Drugs for Life, But Can Opt for Suicide”

    By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES
    Aug. 6, 2008

    “The 64-year-old Oregon woman, whose lung cancer had been in remission, learned the disease had returned and would likely kill her. Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay.”

    “What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1

    To be on the safe side don’t get cancer or expensive health problem Z.

  • I suppose the death drugs 100% I am all for euthanasia. On another story. Muslims could possibly kill Matt Stone and Trey Parker for making fun of Islamic Prophet Mohammed hiding in a bear suit!

    http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/04/20/website-warns-south-park-creators-face-retribution-depicting-muhammad/

    I mean I have always been a defender of Islam but more and more ignorant people hiding behind Islam come up with more and more idiotic crap, aka violence towards everything. False, delusional Muslims resort to murder for any reason they can possibly come up with. Why are the real leaders of Islam not standing up and speaking out publicly against this?

    Just as we argued before about people speaking out against various things, I believe Islamic leaders must speak out against the violence of delusional Muslims who resort to violence!

    Muslims kill people
    Catholics molest little boys
    Christians believe they will go to heaven no matter what just as long as they accept Jesus as their savior.

    Christopher Hitchens is right, “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything “

  • suppose = support

  • Bill Hedges

    Z

    Definitely don’t get cancer, Kendale may deem you unworthy of expensive care…

  • Bill Hedges

    Kendale plays god…

  • Bill,

    Police think they’re righteous and know what’s good for people. Medical personal follow the wishes of patients. Law enforcement tells people what to do, medical personal educate patients and afterwords follow the wishes of the people. Law enforcement play God, medical personal play advocate. But you would say that because you’re God and are always right, don’t forget.

  • Bill Hedges

    Kendale mockingly says “Police think they’re righteous and know what’s good for people.” .

    They are human and make mistakes. There are good cops and a few bad cops as in any group of people. They are expected to make split second decisions of life and death and will be judged for it. They have rules and regulation within their department they must follow. They have to go among your drug friends and try to clean up the streets of those cancerous scum from the neighbor so they won‘t sell their dope to kids like your own.

    Another Kendale pearl “Law enforcement tells people what to do.”.

    Such a board sentence but yes they do. They tell men not to hit women but if they do they are arrested if probable cause exist. Prosecutors decides to prosecute and judge and jury determine the guilt or innocents of the woman beater. Police are the front line protecting the public from mayhem. Very few like you disdain police.

    Kendale fears “Law enforcement play God”.

    With a thousand eyes watching each move, phones with recording devises, slick free lawyers questioning their ever move defending their clients, prosecutors sitting back at leisure making judgment call on police officers action, internal affairs receiving real and made up complaints, and then the court system, and news media using their slant on officers action.

    Like the very few nurses that illegally euthanize their patients, there are a very few police who play god. (by the way, god should not be capitalized except for supreme being). So goes life.

    No I don’t think I am god. I do not wish to euthanize as you do.

    Sorry I have nothing bad to say about the heath profession. There are a few bad individuals working there, so goes life.

  • I see that you are bored and looking to engage me on subject matter that we’ve already discussed. Trying to defame me for my beliefs will not win you anything, especially on a website. I would not want to euthanize a cancer patient with a favorable prognosis. I would rather euthanize patients with an no hope in the world of getting better rather than watch then die a slow painful miserable death. You would rather watch them suffer. Hell you would rather then no be leeches and even have health insurance or health care because they didn’t play you stocks and have lots of money to afford it.

    You can’t argue health care with me with your position of not caring if people can even afford health care. You play on the topic as if I don’t love and care for my patients when you know that I do. You current attempt at an argument with me is weak. Move on old man.

    Here’s a link for you since you are so handicapped by them.

    http://www.euthanasia.com/bystate.html

    It’s only 2010. Maybe you will live long enough to see legal euthanasia grow widespread. Then when you are the minority on this topic I hope you live in a state that does not believe what I believe and I will live to watch you die, perhaps slowly and painfully, and at that time I will pray for you.

  • Bill Hedges

    I am here eating my lobster, asparagus, caviar, having cherry jubilee later, drinking a small glass of wine and online. Watching tv. No, not bored. Happy. I don’t plan on being drunk anytime soon.

    Well in Countries with health plans many have dollar limits, expensive drugs not given, long waits, less Doctors, and closed hospitals like Mayo.. It has nothing to do with prognosis.

    obamacare is not, not, not going to lower cost. Latest evidence says. Way off in the far distance after Presidential election when it got mostly into effect.

    Republican health plan exist. Could have lowered cost and gone to effect almost immediately upon passage. Is your stupidity that ignores my many comments for better health plan. You must of missed Nate’s comments and articles.

    Lowering standard for killing old and serious ill people is inevitable and not road you should be involved in. It takes States decades to kill people on death roll. Save more money execute them quick. Dismember convicted felons don‘t imprison. Using your reasoning.

    As a nurse I would of thought you knew about pain pills. Go figure !!!

    Police protect & serve…

  • Bill Hedges

    Don’t know why you changed subject from police to health care.

  • TheGreatZ

    A lot to reply to here. Where do I start?
    Kenneth, I agree and support state-run socialized medicine as an ordinal preference above private health care. Ultimately Id favor health care run by a worker’s syndicate in free association with other worker’s syndicates and letting doctors provide care when its not authorized as long as its medically necessary would be a small nod in that direction. It wouldn’t “go all the way” and the system as a whole would still be either a private or state socialist health care system, but that’s basically the reason the system is unlikely to pass anything like this because it threatens the dual hegemony of the government and corporations. In the meantime since government at least gives people some democratic say in how health care is run I think we should go as far as single payer. It has many advantages over the private system, doctors can be paid based on patient health instead of number of operations, for example. It would also prevent people from going into bankruptcy over health care costs.
    But I believe regardless of how health care is run a “medical necessity” defense for any theft on the part of the doctor or medical personnel that was necessary in order to perform a medically necessary procedure or provide medically necessary drugs should be excused in cases where the patient is genuinely unable to pay. It is ridiculous to send people to jail for saving other people’s lives who would’ve otherwise died. “Medically necessary” in this case should have a wide definition including treatments that might work when all other options have been exhausted. This as an example:
    “The 64-year-old Oregon woman, whose lung cancer had been in remission, learned the disease had returned and would likely kill her. Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay.”
    Say a doctor with access to the drug were to provide her with it and save her life in defiance of the hospital and health insurance company. Right now he’d go to jail, for saving someone’s life! And it “steals” from people who make an exorbitant amount of money compared to the work they actually do, so its not too much of a hardship if we entitle medical workers to free medical resources in order to work on those who can’t affoard it. In a state-run system replace “unable to pay” with “unapproved by the government”. This rule would help save many lives.
    BTW, your response to Bill that you support euthanasia seems to miss the point. You can support euthanasia as a voluntary measure but also support giving individuals access to other options when they are available regardless of their ability to pay.

  • Bill Hedges

    Z

    “The 64-year-old Oregon woman, whose lung cancer had been in remission, learned the disease had returned and would likely kill her. Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay.”

    Re-read. State plan…

    Where is your version of heath care ? Country health plans don’t work that way. Do you know an exceprion ?

  • Bill Hedges

    exception…

  • Bill,

    It’s obvious that you are drunk. I was not defending Obamacare in my comments, duh. I did not say it would help anything during this discussion on this thread, so I’m not sure how that is relevant. I also did not argue AGAINST republican plans either, so again, not relevant response to my comment. My reasoning has nothing to do with cutting off heads, you’re obviously drunk.

    Me saying physician assisted suicide for patient who are terminally ill is not saying to murder felons rather than sending them to prison, your logic is that of a bafoon or drunkard.

    I know all about the physician ordering of “Comfort Measures Only” on “Do Not Resusitate” patients who are terminal and under hospice care, duh, I am a nurse. Some of those patient remain bed ridden, can not move, can not speak, for months and months and months. Taking pain medication for months due to horrible pain and exsessive drug tolerance to long term usage. You would rather live like that for your last 12 months, that is your choice.

    Golden rule states I should treat other as I would like to be treated. If I am terminal, incontinent, in pain, can not speak or do for myself, on a tube feed from a gastric tube because I aspirate anything I take by mouth, by all means please give me physician-assisted suicide. I am not alone in this belief and that is why states are begining to approve physician-assisted suicide. So I would want to do for my patients what I would like done with me, in accordance to the beliefs of many other in this country.

    You are free to disagree, but do not “HATE” on me for my beliefs, especially when I am not alone in them. To each their own.

    I am done having this conversation with you, stay drunk, bafoon. 🙂

  • Z,

    “BTW, your response to Bill that you support euthanasia seems to miss the point. You can support euthanasia as a voluntary measure but also support giving individuals access to other options when they are available regardless of their ability to pay. ” Z

    My comment about euthanasia stems from a comment bill made.

    “Definitely don’t get cancer, Kendale may deem you unworthy of expensive care… ” Bill

    “Kendale plays god… ” Bill

  • Thank God people are on death row for a long time. It’s amazing how many people are released from prison decades later after evidence supports that they were wrongfully convicted!

    Go Figure.

  • Bill Hedges

    Kendale

    Go fuck yourself I don’t get drunk

  • Tsk Tsk Such vile language. You must really be drunk. 🙂

  • Bill Hedges

    People found innocent were long time in jail before DNA testing.

    Now hit the bottom right hand button on my previous comment.

    You’re the one admitting unable to answer well Thursday because of you consumption. You’re a copy cat trying to accuse me like I did you.

  • http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/education/02charters.html

    Despite Push, Success at Charter Schools Is Mixed.

    Nate,

    I’m not sure which thread we are discussing education on. Here’s a nice article I just saw. A current article about Charter Schools. It looks like I am NOT the only one who is pushing for Charter Schools. it looks as though Bill Gates, The Walton’s, musicians, and even our President are rallying for Charter Schools. Unfortunately it looks like at this moment, charter schools are NOT showing to be much better than public schools. But as it seems many people are now paying more attention to them, perhaps more effort will be put towards them. If so then perhaps education in our country will make a turn for the better!

    Cheers…

  • Bill,

    I have interest in copying you. You accuse me of many things and I don’t care about your accusations. You’re a bitter man with a vandetta against me and I find it to be laughable. It is true, when I consume even 2-3 beers I lose interest in analysing comments on this site and giving deeply thought out responses. Though I am not the one who denies it. My life is an open book and I don’t try to lie and cover it up.

    Move on Bill. if you have nothing meaningful to say, then stop typing. 🙂

    Peace

  • I DO NOT have interest in coping you. ***

  • Copying ***

  • http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/05/01/iran.ahmadinejad/

    “Ahmadinejad blasts U.S. before visit”

    “”We have documents that prove (Washington) is the root of world terrorism,” Ahmadinejad said in a speech in Tehran, Press TV reported. “It has been aiding and abetting extremist groups over the past years.”

    Ahmadinejad said his nation “cuts any hand that signs a document against Iran,” according to the semi-official FARS news agency.”

    Interesting, I don’t doubt that there is some truth to this. There are plenty of documentaries out there by film makers who believe the same thing.

  • Bill Hedges

    I say you drunk, you say I drunk.

    Copy cat.

    Fuck yourself.

  • TheGreatZ

    “My comment about euthanasia stems from a comment bill made.”

    Yes I know. But you seem to be missing the part of his comments about how she was denied an experimental option that could possibly save her life. The right to life(for people who have been born, I’ll leave the whole abortion debate out of this) should be never be taken away involuntarily. If there is something that can possibly save someone’s life they should be entitled to it if they want it no matter how much it costs.

    If someone wants to die, even for no reason I’m OK with that, because it’s their life. But if someone does not want to die and there are treatments that even have the slimmest possibility of helping they should be allowed it regardless of ability to pay, regardless of how much it costs the government or the hospital or anyone. Otherwise you are forcing the person to die and that is wrong.

  • Z,

    I was not commenting on his commend about a woman. I posted the qoutes he made in which I was commenting on. So you misunderstood what I was commenting on.

    If you read what I said, I do no support euthanasia in the case of a favorable prognosis. Twice you misunderstood.

    Bill,

    Put down the bottle man. 🙂

  • Z,

    “My comment about euthanasia stems from a comment bill made.

    “Definitely don’t get cancer, Kendale may deem you unworthy of expensive care… ” Bill

    “Kendale plays god… ” Bill ”

    Do you see how I posted two qoutes of Bill’s. My comments on euthanasia stem from those two qoutes ALONE. Nothing more.

  • Bill Hedges

    The cost saving was the State’s idea. Just as all Countries with health care do, retrict care because of hugh overruns.

    Your idea of stealing from hospital is wrong. Leading to possible $ millions and who knows how much in lawsuites, stc.

    A better answer was Republican plan which reduces cost and goes into immediately effect if it had passed. Obamacare does not reduce cost as proven by latest Medicare numbers. Remember CBO numbers were preliminary. Duplicate numbers threw off their count.

  • Bill Hedges

    Kendale go fuck yourself. I have proven you wrong so many times and all you do is insult. Well I really don’t care tonight. Nate can ban me forever. Your an idiot. A woman beater, ex-drug pusher, nut.

  • Bill Hedges

    Kendale keep my quotes short you don’t want the quote in context do you.

  • I qouted you in full, not in short. See

    “Bill Hedges May 1st, 2010 at 3:02 am
    Z

    Definitely don’t get cancer, Kendale may deem you unworthy of expensive care…

    Report Comment
    Bill Hedges May 1st, 2010 at 3:21 am
    Kendale plays god…

  • If I am such an idiot, why waste your time on commenting me so much? Your idea of proving me wrong is finding links of people who disagree with my personal belief system. You consistenting waste your time and effort. One day you will learn that not everyone shares your beliefs and that is ok.

    I mean Barack Obama and yourself do not share the same beliefs, but that did not stop him from becoming YOUR president did it? Get a grip on yourself man. This is the United States of America, not BillLand.

  • http://www.gallup.com/poll/16333/three-four-americans-support-euthanasia.aspx

    Three in Four Americans Support Euthanasia

    58% support doctor-assisted suicide

  • Bill Hedges

    I don’t like idiots.

    I’d rather get ban for life.

    I’m going to bed in about 10 minutes so keep on the insults you been doing for long time.

    Nate ignored my complaints and that was wrong.

    10 more for tonight… Enjoy…

  • I am not insulting you. I am giving you my stance on a subject. I am giving you links and polls that you like. Period.

  • http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/faqs.shtml#insurance

    Medcaid would deny this claim, but others WILL pay for it since it is NOT considered suicide under the Death With Dignoty Act.

    The state of Oregon will PAY to euthanize a patient.

    FAQs about the Death With Dignity Act

    Q: Will insurance cover the cost of participation in the Act?

    A: The Act does not specify who must pay for the services. Individual insurers determine whether the procedure is covered under their policies (just as they do with any other medical procedure). Oregon statute specifies that participation under the Act is not suicide, so should not affect insurance benefits by that definition. However, federal funding cannot be used for services rendered under the Act. For instance, the Oregon Medicaid program, which is paid for by federal funding, ensures that charges for services related to the Act are paid only with state funds.

  • TheGreatZ

    “Your idea of stealing from hospital is wrong. Leading to possible $ millions and who knows how much in lawsuites, stc.”

    Life is more valueable than property. There are already exceptions to property rights. There’s common law abandonment for example, its there to make sure things actually get put to use. In some states there’s a necessity defense, when if it was necessary to do what is normally illegal to avoid a worse outcome then it is excused. So in a hypothetical scenario if your only option to escape someone chasing you trying to kill you is to steal someone’s car to get away then it would be excused(you’d have to do what you can to return the car though).

    Why not confirm the necessity defense through law to the application of medicine? Life is more important than anyone’s property rights, private or government. Life is necessary to enjoy anything including property, so it logically should be given a higher priority for protection. If hospitals have to lose a little money here and there so that people’s lives can be saved(or so they at least have a slim chance at survival in unlikely cases) then its a small price for them to pay.

    Alternatively we could expand the use of the emergency room. Anytime someone is at risk of death or serious injury or disability or severe pain, let the emergency room take them even if they can not pay or even in a universal health care system even if the government has not approved them as long as they at risk of death if there is any more inaction.

    Its absolutely ridiculous not to consider something like cancer a medical emergency. Every second nothing is done the odds of survival drop, but emergency rooms don’t consider it an emergency until severe physical symptoms manifest and then its too late. Just because you cant see it with your eyes does not mean there is not an emergency. The emergency is detected with the cancer test.

  • Z,

    The property thing is just silly man. There are far better reasons to treat a patient medically then to use the property excuse you gave. How about all medical personal who sware to beneficience and nonmalfecience? We have a duty to treat out patients and we have a duty to no do anything (or to hold back from doing something) that would lead to a poor outcome for our patients. That is simple and plain. For any physician to NOT treat a patient would be a violation of his or her sworn duty towards that patient. I feel the same way as a Registered Nurse.

    I understand that cancer treatment is expensive but I believe if the prognosis is favorable with treatment, then the patient should receive the treatment. I am positively certain that it is tax deductible when we treat patients and patients do not pay. This is why many physicians, and not for profit hospitals do not file civil suits or aggresively persue debt collections.

    For any human to say that it is a violation of the constitution for the government to assist in cancer treatment has no heart! So if our tax dollars go to treat a cancer patient, that is money wasted? But we can spend trillions in millitary operations? Talk about needing to get your priorities straight!

  • TheGreatZ

    I hate it when people misunderstand what I post. Read it again, Kendale. Maybe you need to work on your reading comprehension skills or stop guessing what is being said by skimming people’s posts and actually read each word.

    Just to help you out I’ll point out that I was responding to something BILL said.

    MORE to put things in context:
    “Kenneth, I agree and support state-run socialized medicine as an ordinal preference above private health care.”

    Hopefully this will jog your memory and reclarify where I stand. To add more “ordinal preference” means between the two of them I prefer state-run health care.

    Also to add another comment if the prognosis is greater than a 0% chance of survival, then it should be approved. In that case it was greater than 0% because there was an experimental drug that might have worked. Even if it was highly unlikely it was a chance. Life should come before money so she should have been approved for the treatment. When they denied her, they killed her. I would not blame her for choosing euthanasia instead of waiting for the end, I think it should be a voluntary option for everyone even if you just feel like it. But I also think she should’ve been given the option of trying the drug as a last hope attempt to save her life.

  • TheGreatZ

    BTW, what do you think would happen if a doctor decided this elderly woman deserved a last chance at life and dispensed the drug without permission and then it worked and she lived? What do you think they would do to the doctor even though all he was doing was giving an otherwise doomed person another chance at life? That is why regardless of who is paying for health care we need a medical necessity defensive, a comprehensive, strong one that enables treatment no matter what as long as there is even a remote possibility of it saving life or limb.

    Single payer does have to replace privatized health care and hopefully someday it will but even when that happens there is the risk of someone getting lost in the redtape and not approved. That’s why we should empower doctors who recognize a genuine medical necessity to do what they know they have to to help their patients even if it is not approved. Penalizing people for saving lives is inconsciable.

  • z,

    I did NOT misunderstand what you wrote. I did NOT state that you were NOT talking to Bill. I understood that quite well. Simply because you were talking to Bill did not mean I can not READ and RESPOND.

    It does not change the fact that you reasoning was laughable.

    “Life is more valueable than property. There are already exceptions to property rights. There’s common law abandonment for example, its there to make sure things actually get put to use. In some states there’s a necessity defense, when if it was necessary to do what is normally illegal to avoid a worse outcome then it is excused. So in a hypothetical scenario if your only option to escape someone chasing you trying to kill you is to steal someone’s car to get away then it would be excused(you’d have to do what you can to return the car though).

    Why not confirm the necessity defense through law to the application of medicine? Life is more important than anyone’s property rights, private or government. Life is necessary to enjoy anything including property, so it logically should be given a higher priority for protection. If hospitals have to lose a little money here and there so that people’s lives can be saved(or so they at least have a slim chance at survival in unlikely cases) then its a small price for them to pay.” Z

    That is very weak to the point where I could assume you were making a joke rather than a real idea about Medicine.

    “Also to add another comment if the prognosis is greater than a 0% chance of survival, then it should be approved. In that case it was greater than 0% because there was an experimental drug that might have worked. ” Z

    I can’t agree with that. If it is highly unlikely chemotherapy will save a persons life, I think it’s not worth flipping the bill for that patient. If that was the case then we would spend trillions of dollars on treatments that we’re sure wont help. I don’t think I want my tax dollars spent on lost causes. Then again, what do you do for a living?

    I think this is where that Board of Physicians comes in to determine who should and who should NOT get the treatment. There is a possibility that ANYONE will live if treated, there is ALWAYS a hope 100% of the time no matter the case. But do you want to pay for 100% of people though the likelihood is NOT there? If that is what you believe, the US will be completely bankrupts in NO TIME FLAT.

    I did not MISUNDERSTAND YOU, I understood you just fine. I just disagree with you.

    I am all for helping people but I am NOT for wasting money on lost causes. There is a smart way to decide, and deciding on hope is not scientific at all. Medicine is a science, not a HOPE.

  • Z,

    I ignored this because it was silly, but I’ll respond to it

    “Alternatively we could expand the use of the emergency room. Anytime someone is at risk of death or serious injury or disability or severe pain, let the emergency room take them even if they can not pay or even in a universal health care system even if the government has not approved them as long as they at risk of death if there is any more inaction.” Z

    Energency rooms ALRWADY take anyone who is at risk of death, serious injury, disability, or severe pain, regardless of if they can pay or not. It’s illegal to deny services in an emergency room. They wont admit you to their hospital sometimes if you can not pay, depending on the medical diagnosis. Not for profit hospitals WILL admit you no matter if you can pay or not. Some FOR profit hospitals will admit you even if you cant pay, depending on the physician that takes the case. So do you see why what you said is silly. You gave a “what if” and that “what if” is already a reality.

    As far as a cancer patient, a hospital will admit them. Yet when it comes to the medication, the chemo, the radiation therapy, places tend NOT to flip the bill for those treatments because they are expensive. I agree, the cancer patient should get the treatment, but only if the prognosis is favorable, otherwise why waste the money on a lost cause.

    I don’t believe in wasting. I also don’t believe in prolonging the life of a patient who will die in a few months anyway. Sound cruel? oh well, it’s my belief. That’s why situations such a transplant surgeries there are transplant comitties to decide if the candidate should get the organ or not. Some people are just not good candidates, which are usually OLD people, drug and alcohol abuses, those with deadly infectious diseases such as Hepatitis and HIV. Those people do NOT get the organ. That is my mantality. That is also the mantality of the majority which is why such things are reality today.

  • “I understand that cancer treatment is expensive but I believe if the prognosis is favorable with treatment, then the patient should receive the treatment. I am positively certain that it is tax deductible when we treat patients and patients do not pay. This is why many physicians, and not for profit hospitals do not file civil suits or aggresively persue debt collections.

    For any human to say that it is a violation of the constitution for the government to assist in cancer treatment has no heart! So if our tax dollars go to treat a cancer patient, that is money wasted? But we can spend trillions in millitary operations? Talk about needing to get your priorities straight! ” Kendale

    Z,

    This qoute is not in reaction to your post, this is a reaction to the “conservative arguement” against the current health reform in general, not you, and I am NOT calling you a conservative either. The first half of my post was regarding your comment, as it fits. If the second half does not seem appropriate in response to you, then it must not be about you. I appologize if I make comments based on several previous individuals commenting. I see no point in making a separate comment for each reponse.

  • TheGreatZ

    “That is very weak to the point where I could assume you were making a joke rather than a real idea about Medicine.”
    Weak? How is it weak? Because you disagree with it. I was not making a joke I was quite serious.
    “I can’t agree with that. If it is highly unlikely chemotherapy will save a persons life, I think it’s not worth flipping the bill for that patient. If that was the case then we would spend trillions of dollars on treatments that we’re sure wont help. I don’t think I want my tax dollars spent on lost causes. Then again, what do you do for a living?
    I think this is where that Board of Physicians comes in to determine who should and who should NOT get the treatment. There is a possibility that ANYONE will live if treated, there is ALWAYS a hope 100% of the time no matter the case. But do you want to pay for 100% of people though the likelihood is NOT there? If that is what you believe, the US will be completely bankrupts in NO TIME FLAT.”
    Trillion dollar care? C’mon. Now who’s making the weak argument? No health care treatment is going to cost that much money. And $4000 is a far cry from trillions. If you can really point out health care treatments that would cost that much money then I’d support a cutoff at some dollar amount for really unlike but still possible treatments, but not as low as $4000.
    “There is a smart way to decide, and deciding on hope is not scientific at all. Medicine is a science, not a HOPE.”
    But it can be scientifically determined if there is even a slight chance. There are things that would have a flat 0% chance of working. I’m not saying those things should be approved just things with a greater than 0% of working. If there is flat zero evidence something will work it should not be approved, if there’s some evidence even if it is unlikely though it should.
    “That’s why situations such a transplant surgeries there are transplant comitties to decide if the candidate should get the organ or not.”
    This is different, because organs are finite you can’t just make more in a factory, so it makes sense to give them to the ones most likely not to soon suffer another failure. You can not mass produce organs to meet any demand. That will only happen when we have perfected stem cell research to produce organs. Then I will say, mass produce the organs and give them to all who need them.
    “That is also the mantality of the majority”
    The mentality of the majority right now opposes universal health care. You are making an argumentum ad populum. What a silly argument. I never make arguments like this when I happen to hold the majority view because I realize that what the majority thinks is irrelevant to whether or not that view is correct.
    “As far as a cancer patient, a hospital will admit them. Yet when it comes to the medication, the chemo, the radiation therapy, places tend NOT to flip the bill for those treatments because they are expensive. I agree, the cancer patient should get the treatment, but only if the prognosis is favorable, otherwise why waste the money on a lost cause.”
    Medication, chemo, radiation can be mass produced. As for “a lost cause”, it is not truly a lost cause if there is a possibility of saving a person’s life. In some cases experimental treatment that has only an estimably low, maybe 1% chance of success based on available evidence works. If there is absolutely no evidence suggesting a treatment would do anything I agree it would be silly, but if there’s even the slightest evidence it should be pursued. Would it cost money? Yes, but on the side it would add to scientific knowledge. If it works it could turn out to be the breakthrough they’re looking for, if it doesn’t maybe their data from the experience will even disprove the little evidence there was that it might work and prevent the treatment from being wasted on future patients.
    “I appologize if I make comments based on several previous individuals commenting. I see no point in making a separate comment for each reponse.”
    Apology accepted BUT you could have said “Bill,…” before the part to bill like you often say “Z,” in your responses to me.

  • “Trillion dollar care? C’mon. Now who’s making the weak argument? No health care treatment is going to cost that much money.”

    Not 1 treatment. But once we start fulfilling the lost cause dreams of every dying patient, do you NOT think it will add up, come on man, now who’s not understanding? Do you NOT look at the big picture or do you take life, one case at a time?
    300 million times $4k = 1.2 trillion. Trust me, chemotherapy cost astronomically more money then $4k trust me. And chemo is not a 1 dose thing, it requires hospital stay and if chemo doesnt work they move on to radiation ect, the total cost of stay and multiple treatments is likely more then $100,000.00 I’m sure. Look at the big picture man.

    “The mentality of the majority right now opposes universal health care. You are making an argumentum ad populum.” I am not talking to you about social medicine, I am talking to you about realistic and unrealistic treatment and the cost for such treatment and who should get treated and not. Let’s not stray to far from the original subject. I am simply not going to agree that patients with a 1% chance of survival being given $100,000.00 treatment plans that will be paid by our tax dollars. It’s just not realistic man. You are basically saying rather than spending 17% of our tax dollars on health care too 1000+% it’s not going to happen man. Some people are just going to have to die.

    Do some research on the cost of medical treatment, then some stats on how many people have this or that condition, and do the math. Many people will die because they are just too far gone, we can not pay for everyone who has a 1% chance at survival. The majority that I am referring to is not the majority of US citizens I mean a majority of health care professionals.

    I’ll have to stand with my disagreement. I want to save lives, that is why I am a nurse and working towards becoming a physician. I truly care for my fellow man and want to do all I can to help them live and be healthy, but I know that we can not save everyone. I am shooting for the ones who I know we can save and I want myself and everyone else to learn from those we can not save to prevent the continuance of preventable death.

    I suppose you and I will have to wait and see the direction of health care in the US.