Did the system fail this man?

vulturesrow · #1 11-22-2005, 01:53 PM

Last night I checked out this website that I was tipped off to through an email newsletter that I receive. The site is that of a young man who was suffering from cystic fibrosis. His insurance refused to cover the cost of a transplant in spite of the fact that his doctors assessed that he had about a 60 percent chance of success. The young man recently died before anything else could be done.

So the subject line reveals my question here. To me it seems borderline criminal that a young man was basically sentenced to death by his insurance company unless he could raise 400,000 dollars on his own. I realize there exist mechanisms in place for this sort of thing, including a charity that was assisting this man. And my thoughts on this dont include thinking that we should tell insurance companies what they ought and ought not to pay for. But it surely seems to me to suggest that some sort of government intervention such as aid, a grant, something ought to be used here. It is utterly senseless to me that in a country as prosperous as ours that something like this should happen.

Open fire. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

cardcounter0 · #2 11-22-2005, 01:58 PM

Obviously, the free market will decide who lives and dies. Anything else, like "some sort of government intervention such as aid, a grant, something" would be, would be ... *shudder* ... SOCIALISM!!!!
[img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

vulturesrow · #3 11-22-2005, 02:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, the free market will decide who lives and dies. Anything else, like "some sort of government intervention such as aid, a grant, something" would be, would be ... *shudder* ... SOCIALISM!!!!
[img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

As you know, I am generally in favor of free market solutions. The market didnt do much for this fellow, in spite of the fact that he had health insurance.

cardcounter0 · #4 11-22-2005, 02:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The market didnt do much for this fellow

[/ QUOTE ]

Hence the term "free market". He was free to have gotten better insurance. He was free to move to Canada were he might have gotten better care. But, Nooooo!, he wants to sit on his liberal welfare-state butt and expect the government to take care of him. Pull himself up by the bootstraps! He should have gone to medical school and learned to cure himself. It's called self-reliance.

jesusarenque · #5 11-22-2005, 02:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The market didnt do much for this fellow

[/ QUOTE ]
He should have gone to medical school and learned to cure himself. It's called self-reliance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brilliant.

tolbiny · #6 11-22-2005, 02:27 PM

"But it surely seems to me to suggest that some sort of government intervention such as aid, a grant, something ought to be used here. It is utterly senseless to me that in a country as prosperous as ours that something like this should happen."

The government making a large overt payment to save a guys life would really open the floogates to totally socialized medicine. Which i actually think would be better than the half measures in place today. Stuff like medicare seems mostly to help large medical companies keep thier costs up, and prevents insurance companies from coming up with affordable solutions for the lower class.
I certainly wouldn't want to give insurance companies a reason to withhold payment for vital services, and the govt picking up the tab could certainly be seen as an excuse.

cardcounter0 · #7 11-22-2005, 02:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The government making a large overt payment to save a guys life would really open the floogates to totally socialized medicine.

[/ QUOTE ]

See! Let's kill all the sick and infirm, RIGHT NOW! Any thing to stop the dreaded ... *shudder* ... socialized medicine.
[img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

r3vbr · #8 11-22-2005, 02:40 PM

IF YOU ARE SO SAD HE DIED, WHY DIDNY YOU SEND HIM U$1000.
I'm sure there are 400 people out there that are passing this article around, condeming capitalism and "the system", but I don't see them couphing up $1000 bucks.

you are also a "murderer" since you didnt help? is that it?

Why do the insurance companies have to make the charity and sacrifice the shareholders (who may be an old lady with cancer who also needs money).

Hate people using sentimental feelings to attack "the system".
I'm sure there are thousands, if not MILLIONS of people who could not have died, or expanded their lifespan over 20 years, if they had 1 million dollars of disposable income.

Rich people die older, surprise?
THis has nothing to do with the system.

we should not live in socialism because of this, even thinking sentimentally, the law of diminishing returns (over productivity) on a socialist society would be harmfull to EVERYONE over the long run. in the USSR, people died of HUNGER becuase a long time ago someone made an argument similar to yours.

mackthefork · #9 11-22-2005, 03:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The government making a large overt payment to save a guys life would really open the floogates to totally socialized medicine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh no, health care at the point of need, with no discrimination between rich and poor, that is a terrible terrible thing, just think of all the poor people who wouldn't die, a tragedy waiting to happen.

Mack

TomCollins · #10 11-22-2005, 03:22 PM

At what cost? Should someone be kept alive an extra day for $1M? Should someone be kept alive an extra year for $10M?

What if there are 500 people who can be saved by $1M, to extend their lives 20 years, or 1 person who can have his life extended 40?

Why are you in a better position to decide how others should spend their money than they are? Are you demanding that the doctors work for free? If not, the money has to come from somewhere.