Did the system fail this man?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
if something else can trump this, then it can't be the right that all others stem from.

Just a thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Self-ownership (and the right to be free from aggression of others) is the right from which all others come forth.

[Jdanz]

you might want to realize i'm on your side on this one, not sure who you thought you were responding to.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
you might want to realize i'm on your side on this one, not sure who you thought you were responding to.

[/ QUOTE ]

While we might agree in the idea of a "right to life" we clearly don't agree on what that includes. Your right to life does not include a right to my resources.

[whiskeytown]

what you suggest sounds like a plan for people who fall thru the cracks funded by the Government - a sort of social single payer health care system...

Good god, man - don't let the goosesteppers in the Republican party hear you say that - it's unprofitable to fund that man's treatment, and there's probably some really obscene [censored] loophole (there always is) that gets them out of paying for treatment.

You want to fix the problem, you'll have to turn to Democratic Solutions and some government regulation of an industry that is spiraling out of control - but all the Republicans wanna do is keep shoveling in the cash.

If the Republican Party hears of this post, I doubt you'll be invited to the next Felony indictment.

RB

[DVaut1]

One thing I missed in the details of this story (and I never saw a detailed explanation on the website linked to by VR in his OP, although I gave the website only a cursory glance) is this: why did the insurance company/Medicaid deny him coverage for the transplant? This seems vitally important to the discussion here. I saw a rather vague answer on the website, which claimed that the insurance company/Medicaid refused to cover the transplant because "it's all about money" -- which I don't doubt is true. However, I'm curious as to why the insurance company/Medicaid specifically denied coverage, and what kind of insurance policy the now-deceased man/his family had -- while I feel like my liberal heart should bleed for this guy (and it's certainly a tragic story which ought to raise serious questions regardless of who's to blame), I think these are not-so-inconsequential details.

Perhaps vulturesrow (or someone else) can provide more information, if they have any? I like to criticize insurance companies and heartless bureaucratic organizations as much as the next guy, but I'm genuinely curious as to why this man was specifically denied coverage. I'm wondering, especially -- why didn't the man/his family ever take legal action against the insurance company if they thought the insurance company wasn't providing services they were obligated to provide, as specified in the policy? Certainly, such legal recourses were/are still available, even after the man died.

[Khern]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well a fundemental right to life would but into other fundemental rights

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, all other rights stem from this one, therefore it trumps the others.


[/ QUOTE ]

At what point did this become a right? Was this a right 10K years ago? Did we simply lock up the tiger that ate the cave man? We are not as dominant over nature as many would like to think. There are serious natural constraints on what we are able to do. We cannot garuntee life. If we attempt to do so at this point, it is not going to work.

There is no right to life.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well a fundemental right to life would but into other fundemental rights

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, all other rights stem from this one, therefore it trumps the others.


[/ QUOTE ]

At what point did this become a right? Was this a right 10K years ago? Did we simply lock up the tiger that ate the cave man? We are not as dominant over nature as many would like to think. There are serious natural constraints on what we are able to do. We cannot garuntee life. If we attempt to do so at this point, it is not going to work.

There is no right to life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify (if I may; shout me down if I'm mis-representing you vulture) -- but when vulturesrow speaks of rights (or anyone else who refers to rights, be they legal or natural) -- it's referring to anything that we have a just claim on;this is not a guarantee, nor is it even synonymous with a guarantee (even if we might sometimes say such things like 'we are guaranteed the right to vote', or some other such similar platitudes).

Obviously, there is no entity that I know of which can guarantee life -- in the way that you mean guarantee. I may eat poison turkey tomorrow and die, regardless of whatever rights I may possess. Even if I survive the turkey, I might catch the bird flu at the mall on Friday -- and if I can somehow escape the bird flu, I might die in a car accident on the way home from the mall. So you're right to note that no such 'guarantee' to life exists, but it's not particularly pertinent to a discussion about the legitimacy or the hierarchy of rights. Rights aren't guarantees, and no one is arguing (I don't think) that they are.

There are many entities that might be able to recognize and adjudicate (and from there, codify and forcibly defend) what we justifiably can lay claim to – I prefer a sovereign state, with its rule of law, to do my right-recognizing and defending. pvn and others may prefer some other paradigm for how we justify and defend our claims. But what VR is talking about -- as is everyone who refers to a 'right' -- is merely meant to convey that we have a justifiable claim on whatever it is we have a right to. And I think almost all of us agree that life is something with which we can have a justifiable claim on.

Clearer, I hope?

[Gunny Highway]

[ QUOTE ]
While we might agree in the idea of a "right to life" we clearly don't agree on what that includes. Your right to life does not include a right to my resources.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have no right to life. You have right to not have your life taken from you by others. You ahve a right to peacably pursue the means to live You do not have the right to steal from me to live. To take this further, when you start stealing me to uphold your so-called "right to life" you may find you've found a good way to forfeit that right.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing I missed in the details of this story (and I never saw a detailed explanation on the website linked to by VR in his OP, although I gave the website only a cursory glance) is this: why did the insurance company/Medicaid deny him coverage for the transplant? This seems vitally important to the discussion here. I saw a rather vague answer on the website, which claimed that the insurance company/Medicaid refused to cover the transplant because "it's all about money" -- which I don't doubt is true. However, I'm curious as to why the insurance company/Medicaid specifically denied coverage, and what kind of insurance policy the now-deceased man/his family had -- while I feel like my liberal heart should bleed for this guy (and it's certainly a tragic story which ought to raise serious questions regardless of who's to blame), I think these are not-so-inconsequential details.

Perhaps vulturesrow (or someone else) can provide more information, if they have any? I like to criticize insurance companies and heartless bureaucratic organizations as much as the next guy, but I'm genuinely curious as to why this man was specifically denied coverage. I'm wondering, especially -- why didn't the man/his family ever take legal action against the insurance company if they thought the insurance company wasn't providing services they were obligated to provide, as specified in the policy? Certainly, such legal recourses were/are still available, even after the man died.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are absolutely correct that there are definitely some missing details. And as "they" say, thats where the devil is. But I cant help but thinking that there has got to be something we can do to improve a system where a young man in the prime of his life (the CF aside of course) can basically be sentenced to death by his insurance company. Unfortuately, I know nothing more about the story other than what I read.

[TomCollins]

What if he asks YOU for $400,000 for the operation, and you say no. Are you sentencing him to death as well?