By no means am I pro big gov't dictating to us. But, again, sometimes limits must be placed. It's like someone who's 90 years old, has difficulties moving because of arthritis, high blood pressure and a slew of other issues wanting a hip replacement. The doctors should say no, and certainly should not recommend it in the first place. The insurance companies, should not cover it. Medicare and medicaid (oops, there's the gov't), being similar to insurance companies in paying for medical costs, should also state it's not covered. If said person wants it, then they need to find a doctor who's going to go against better judgement and agree to do the procedure all the while paying for it themselves. No bankruptcies should be allowed in this instance either. Cash up front, or a lien placed on property, etc. In the infant's case, and those whom are on medicaid/medicare or similar gov't sanctioned health plans, I do think the gov't has a vested interest because of the high costs of life support and other medical procedures. I believe that the current health conditions and quality of life need to be considered when removing someone from life support or denying certain medical procedures as I listed above. Anyone remember Terri Schiavo's case?
Seems the Hospital(Doctor) is trying to pull the plug. Right now in America Insurance companies are stopping medication and treatment for us. Until you get put in the situation where a family member or you lose health insurance, you are not going to understand. As for this family, I am not in their shoes. I just know I would not want my child to suffer, nor would I want to end their life if I thought they had a chance.
Just read that a Detroit Hospital denied thier request to bring the child there. I couldn't copy the link, the work computer says not allowed so I will wait till I get home to post the link if it doesn't get posted before then.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/02/24/windsor-baby-joseph-detroit-hospital-refused367.html It hard's to let go, I have no idea what I would do in this situation. When my Grandfather ask me how long were we going to make him suffer, I thought hard about pulling the plug on his O2. It was not my call, I would have done it that night if it was.
Working from the inside (in hospitals), I can tell you that the child very obviously has a GRAVE medical condition, and death is IMMINENT, therefore, anything being done now is basically ARTIFICIAL LIFE SUPPORT!!! Sadly, SCHIT HAPPENS, and no one likes it, but it's the truth. You think the doctors LIKED telling that family that they should allow the child to die??? Hell no, many doctors consider it a "personal failiure" if they cannot heal a patient, but at some point, the inevitable happens. Not trying to sound mean, but I know what the other side of this story looks like... I had a co-worker with a son with a severe neurological problem not too much unlike what this child may have, that died when he was 2yrs old despite the best medical care in the world.... The bills tabulated up to over $2 million, for a child that every one KNEW was going to die.... He didn't have any quality of life, he has a home ventilator, a tracheostomy, a feeding tube, a 24/7 nurse, etc, etc, etc,..... And all that stuff costs money. The biggest disparity in healthcare is the sad ending that MANY people have, where those around them cannot accept or haven't been well educated about the graveness of the patient's condition. I see it at LEAST once a month, and the outcome is almost always the same. My aunt recently was "gravely ill," but there was a glimmer of hope. Though her body had a very serious infection and some of her organs shut down, she had a strong HEART (in the physical since, not emotional), and with proper care, and a lot of support, she is now in a rehab facility getting back to health. And though she probably wracked up more medical expenses than she'll ever pay back, she's alive and doing fairly well. She also had taken the initiative to get GOOD INSURANCE, and it's paid very well for all that she has been through. The care we get is the BEST in the world, and sometimes, it's VERY expensive, but it's also very expensive to develop the treatments, experiment, pay the staff that take care of the patients, etc. Where we really have GREAT problems is the amount of defensive medicine we practice, which really has no true rational medically, but has a very strong rational if a doctor wants to prevent being sued!!! Tort Reform alone could make healthcare more cost-effective!!! Do tell the story Gary, I've not heard the one about the girl losing her hands and feet... Has your FIL looked in to Medicaid or other sources for help, many drug companies like hospitals will GIVE away a certain # of prescriptions in efforts to help patients out, it a win/win situation because they get a "tax deduction" for a 'donation,' while the patient gets the medication that he or she needs. What's the story with the insurance company??? Did they have a "maximum" payout and at that point they turned the money faucet off??? Many policies are set-up that way. My personal insurance will only pay up to $2 million dollars per family member. Which sounds like a lot until you run into a MAJOR medical crisis. Another option would be to take him on as a dependent if he would qualify, then you or your wife could cover his medical expenses through your insurance, I've seen that done many times with critically/chronically ill parents. There certainly ARE some options and avenues that could be looked into. Our hospitals give EVERYONE treatment, even the Canuck that showed up at the hospital I was working in 2006 with chest pains..... He was in our cardiac cath lab and had a stent placed in a 97% blocked artery and was discharged from the hospital the next day in good condition..... He was on the "waiting list" in Canada for a Heart Cath and was scheduled to get it in about 4 months...... Our care costs $$$$, no doubt, and sadly, many of the hospitals are driven near bankruptcy by patients who have no insurance and will NEVER pay. Many hospitals here are "not-for-profit," which means they are required to donate a certain percentage of their services, in return for a tax shelter, another "win/win" situation because the hospital gets tax breaks and the citizens get at some level some FREE CARE in return. Unfortunately, in border states, many of the hospitals are so bombarded with illegal aliens that they are in a constant loss cycle, and many hospitals in California were closed due to the financial drain placed on them by being forced to provide care for illegals that they'd never be paid for. Ironically, you can't deny care to an illegal immigrant, and if you provide care to him/her and something goes wrong, that same illegal immigrant can sue you for care they would've NEVER paid for otherwise. Sort of like nailing a part of your anatomy to a chair and trying to stand up, neither side of the equation makes sense, and both sides HURT!!!
Read it for yourself http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/01/03/toddler-hand-feet-amputated-hour-er-wait/ It's a great system we have He's was in the Hospital for 46 days and had three surgery's in that time frame, he's maxed out.
Gary, Part of the HIGH infant mortality is directly a result of the MOTHER and the lack of prenatal care, drug abuse, smoking, alcohol use, etc, etc..... A nurse I work with said that nearly 40% of the mothers they have deliver tested positive for some illegal substance..... NEARLY 40%!!!! How damned sad and scary is that!?!?!?!? On the flip-side, I have a buddy who's wife gave birth to their TWINS at 23 weeks and 5 days..... Both are healthy normal little girls, though a little small for their age (imagine that), they are perfectly healthy at almost 4yrs old now..... Edit..... As to the little girl's situation, there is probably a LOT more than you or I are hearing, and while it's a horrible thing, generally fever, rash, cough aren't symptoms you rush someone to a room in an ER for..... Generally you don't see an infection go rampant like that either, there's most certainly much more to the story..... She probably developed SEPSIS and due to the sepsis developed clotting disorders common to sepsis and it caused her to develop clots in the small vessels in the extremities causing tissue death.... A very sad outcome???? Most certainly, but it wasn't likely due to the ER wait, much more likely due to the infection and sepsis, which may have taken the exact same course had she been seen immediately when she showed up in the ER..... In most places in the world my Aunt mentioned above would be DEAD, but fortunately for GREAT HEALTHCARE, she's alive and doing fairly well.... As to your FIL's situation, I suspect there may be more to the story from the hospital's side as to WHY he had to have 3 surgeries, and WHY he had to be in the hospital for 46 days..... If I were in your situation, I'd have a copy of his medical record, and have a lawyer looking through it unless everything seemed "honky-dorry." Something sounds amiss in that situation. Again, I don't know the WHOLE story, but most patients I've seen that were in the hospital that long, had an underlying cause for it.... And while I don't like lawsuits, I do recognize that there occasionally is a need for them.
What's flawed is.....you missed my entire point. I'm NOT paying more for my insurance, here in NC-USA, based on my ability to pay. In Canada.....people ARE.
You're correct, I am missing your point - because it seems to be moving.... I'll re-type again what I said before, every person pays the same. Whether you make $75 a day or $75,000, the premiums are the same. Now the million dollar question is, how do you interpret that into paying more based on income? You made the point before about paying more taxes but you failed to make the connection to what that has to do with healthcare.
Moving? Whatever. I stated this WAY back in this thread. You then admitted the Canadian healthcare system was propped up by taxes (Read- isn't self-sufficient...operating only on equal premiums received from citizens). So....if you make more....you're paying more (again.....you admitted this). That IS my point. Now....what did "I" move....or what is flawed?
I do see the point you are trying to make, you believe that because the government subsidizes healthcare - that means that those who pay higher taxes should get preferential treatment. I could see your point from the beginning. My point was that reasoning is flawed. Like it or not, it is a government program in Canada, just like the military is here. Here's where I will make my point again and if you don't get it now - I give up. My taxes go to pay for the police (or fire department, or military). Should the police respond to my 911 call before someone who pays less taxes? It's the same logic as your reasoning with healthcare.
No. Obviously you don't (still). I didn't read the rest of your post. I said exactly what I meant to say. Don't read into it.
Germ, the average ER wait time in Canada is over 20 hours. That girl wouldn't have just lost her hands... she'd be dead if she were in Canada. http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2008/08/07/the-waiting-game-er-wait-times-in-canada-vs-us/ Additionally, people in Canada die of things that would be detected early in the emergency departments here in the USA. There's a catch-22. If you go to the ED in the USA with a fever and a headache... they're going to want to do a lumbar puncture to rule out potentially fatal infections. If you fall and hit your head, they'll want to do a CT scan of your brain to rule out an intracranial hemorrhage. These are expensive procedures and somebody has to pay for them. Should you go to the ED with the head injury or fever and headache and you aren't offered the tests.. and you have a bleed or meningitis then you can sue the crap out of the doctor and hospital. Quality healthcare is expensive. Defensive medicine raises costs. Ridiculously high malpractice insurance raises healthcare costs.
It was a rhetorical question. Let me break what I was saying down for you... In the US...I pay what you pay for health insurance (relatively). I'm NOT paying more for my insurance....based on my ability to pay. In Canada, that isn't the case. My point is (AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN) that Canadians DO NOT pay the same for healthcare (as you had previously stated). You're completely hung up on the wrong thing.
Christine..... I'm sure glad someone else KNOWS what they're talking about.... Too many "ignorant" people (and I mean that in the sense of uneducated on a subject, not intended to be "offensive") have NO IDEA what level of DEFENSIVE MEDICINE is really practiced, and how TORTE REFORM could change a lot of that and in essence LOWER COSTS significantly.
Doug I have always thought loser pays would help with bad law suits. If it were your kid and what happen to the CA girl happen to yours. What is the price limit one puts on losing their hands and feet. I honestly do not know what I would do.
Gary, Without knowing any more than I do right now, I can't say anyone is to blame.... Sometimes it ends up that way!!! I had a young patient die on me one night, NOTHING fit the mould that would be expected, there was such an odd occurrence of events, and without going into too much detail, even after the fact, with 4 surgeons a couple of intensivists, and a general practice doc looking over every shred of info available, no one understands completely what happened or why. It's tragic that this happened to that child, however, that doesn't necessarily mean that anyone did something wrong. Maybe they should sue the Federal Govt. for FORCING ER's to see illegal aliens, because if that hospital is like MOST in California, it is probably overrun with illegals using it as their own personal clinic, illegals who'll NEVER pay in 90% or more of the cases!!! This is the hard part about a case like the little girl's case, because MOST people see a "poor little girl" whose life was horribly altered, and it seems everyone wants to place blame somewhere.... There are so many factors that play into how and why something happens and many times there really is no one to blame. The fact that the little girl developed liver failure was probably due to a sepsis, but how long had she been sick at home??? At what point did she develop "liver failure???" She surely didn't just up and develop liver failure in the ER.... The liver failure is generally a late sepsis occurrence, happens from low blood pressure or blood clotting in small vessels, which is likely also what happened to her hand and feet, a condition called DIC (Disseiminated Intravascular Coagulation) in which blood clots form abnormally often times causing organ failure d/t failure of blood to get to those organs, and it can also cause tissue death from lack of blood flow. It's far more complicated than "someone didn't do their job fast enough." This is a cascade of events that may have sadly been unpreventable whether the little girl was seen the minute she came into the ER or 5 hours later. The normal differential diagnosis for her initial symptoms they reported would often times be thought to be VIRAL, and the treatment for VIRAL infections MOST of the time is fluids and supportive care, maybe some Tylenol or Ibuprofen to control the fever and aches. But most people never see this side of it, all they see is a little girl had something horrible happen and want to blame someone..... You want to talk TRUE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, I could tell you some stories that would make your head spin, TRUST ME!!!!
For an update click the link and you have to watch the video clip in the story. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/0...ecieving-threats-baby-joseph/?test=latestnews
