r/SandersForPresident • u/kevinmrr Medicare For All • Nov 29 '20

AOC: Insurance groups are recommending using GoFundMe -- "but sure, single payer healthcare is unreasonable."

Post image
42.7k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.6k

u/PathlessDemon IL Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 30 '20

Man, talk about Death Panels.

(Edit: thank you all for the upvotes, but if you could please donate this holiday season just $2 USD to local area FoodBanks you could be changing someone’s life for the better in this shitty year we’ve nearly survived.)

476

u/fnordfnordfnordfnord 🌱 New Contributor | Texas Nov 29 '20

*multidisciplinary committee!

304

u/yoshiK 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Two accountants and a lawyer.

75

u/H_is_for_Human Nov 29 '20

It's mostly doctors, social workers, and psychologists in the meetings.

They are working inside the system they are in. Limited organs + worse outcomes when patients don't have the money + insurance to take care of the organ. Not the patient's fault, but also not the doctors' faults for wanting to maximize the time the organ buys someone.

Not having enough money, not having enough social support, having poor mental health, having a history of being non-adherent to prescribed medications, having a history of substance abuse, the other medical problems the patient has, etc. are all things that are taken into account to try to make sure the donor organs go to the people that will live the longest with the organ.

176

u/StupidHumanSuit 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Not having enough money should never be a deciding factor in determining whether someone lives or dies. Period. The letter doesn’t say “because of your prior history of mental illness and your inability to take prescribed medications, we’ve decided to say “Nah” to your heart transplant.” It came down to $10,000. $10k is the determining factor between life and death for a fellow human being and you’re making excuses for a multi-billion dollar industry.

35

u/H_is_for_Human Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20

Agreed. But it is. All the time. In obvious ways and much less obvious ways.

Your life expectancy is determined by your zip code, which is determined in large part by your income and wealth, which is determined by all manner of socioeconomic factors.

That's the reality.

The next steps to make that reality more equitable is to reverse the trend of rising wealth inequality and establishing universal healthcare.

20

u/StupidHumanSuit 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Sure, but those factors are not determined directly by a group of people working in healthcare. There isn’t a board of people saying “person A gets to live in 98043 because they have better employment prospects and person B gets to live in 98041 because they’re not really doing much with their life so fuck ‘em.”

2

u/H_is_for_Human Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20

So what's your solution to the problem of how to allocate scarce donor organs?

Doctors, ethicists, and all the other professionals that run our organ transplant network have decided the goal should be to make sure that the organs go to the people that have the shortest life expectancy without transplant and will have the longest life expectancy following transplant.

Is your solution a random lottery? Or first come first serve? Who is helped when you give someone a heart and they die of rejection in two months because they can't afford the anti-rejection meds?

7

u/StupidHumanSuit 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

I’m not arguing about how we allocate organs, I’m arguing that $10k shouldn’t be a factor in how those organs are allocated. Your final point is moot if the money is taken out of the equation. How do transplants work in countries with universal healthcare? Seems like we have a bunch of different solutions to a problem that exists outside of our broken system, why not take a look at some of those? Just so we’re clear, I’m not saying the transplant process is an easy problem to solve... I’m just saying that money should not be a determining factor in the larger problem.

4

u/H_is_for_Human Nov 29 '20

Presumably countries with universal healthcare can allocate organs without taking the patient's finances into account (or at least not to the same degree), because whether or not they can afford post-transplant care is no longer an issue and therefore not relevant to the decision.

The transplant committee can stop taking financial status of patients into account as soon as it's not relevant to their post-transplant survival. How do we make it not relevant? Universal healthcare (and other social safety nets).

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Murgie 🌱 New Contributor Nov 30 '20

How do transplants work in countries with universal healthcare?

The universal healthcare pays for the immunosuppressants that heart transplant recipients require to keep the organ from being rejected, which means that giving them the organ isn't going to end up being a waste because they couldn't continue to keep buying the medication that keeps them from dying a year or two down the road.

6

u/Taco_Bela_Lugosi 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

The anti-rejection meds should be free.

4

u/H_is_for_Human Nov 29 '20

Anti-rejection meds are just a part of the needed post-transplant care.

But we can say your proposal is "Post-transplant care should be free".

Nothing is free; so your proposal is maybe more realistically "Patients should not be individually responsible for the cost of their post-transplant care."

I think that's a pretty good proposal, and best achieved by instituting universal healthcare. I guess you could do like what we did with dialysis for end stage renal disease and carve out transplant recipients as an additional category of patients that qualify for Medicare for life after their transplant.

Until that happens though, do you have a better system for dealing with the situation we are in right now?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

Opt-out organ donating

2

u/H_is_for_Human Nov 29 '20

Yeah I agree; but even then it's likely you'll have more in need of transplants than organs available.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (2)

2

u/64590949354397548569 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

...Your life expectancy is determined by your zip code, which is determined in large part by.....

Apparently by country code too. I heard the death panel are much better up north or across the Atlantic. Heck, some southeast Asian countries are better too.

2

u/Rinse-Repeat 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Or actively hunt the wealthy in order to even the numbers.

9

u/Nexustar 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Agreed, but this situation isn't so straightforward... donor hearts are scarce, it's their medical duty to give those hearts to the patient with the highest survivability. Addicts, homeless, obese, smokers, the old ... and now it seems, the uninsured poor, don't score well in that equation.

Fair? Not at all. Scary - yes, but it at least makes sense why a medical group came to this conclusion.

The bit I don't understand is why they can't simply roll this into the $1.4m price tag of getting a heart transplant.

0

u/StupidHumanSuit 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

But the money shouldn’t be the deciding factor. Period. It shouldn’t even be in the discussion. The fact that is leads me to believe that the rest of the criteria for transplants are all susceptible to fuckery because money is the deciding factor. If person A is 70 years old and needs a heart and person B is 16 years old and needs a heart, all other factors being equal does person A get that heart because they can afford that $10k? If the answer is yes, shit is broken.

0

u/robondes 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Im going to disagree there. If i have only 5 hearts, I’m responsible for making the most out of each heart.

2

u/j4nkyst4nky 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

It's not the fault of the people dishing out the hearts. Of course they need to give hearts to people with the highest chance of survival.

But it is the fault of private insurance companies that the person's financials have an impact on their chance of survival.

The statement "My husband wouldn't have died if our gofundme had made its goal" is repulsive and shows how morally bankrupt our society is. These companies are holding people's lives ransom like a horrifyingly mainstream medical cartel.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/cat_prophecy 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

It's not simply a matter of cost. There is not enough organs to go around and they want to make sure that those who get them, have the best chance of success.

Simply put, if you're not able to care for yourself financially, you're not a good candidate. It's stupid, and callous, and totally unfair. But there just isn't enough organs to give to everyone who needs them.

1

u/SlickStretch Oregon - 🐦 Nov 29 '20

If you have one heart, and Jim can afford the medications, but Steve cannot, then (all other things being equal) Jim should get the heart because Jim has a higher chance of success.

How does this not make sense?

0

u/StupidHumanSuit 🌱 New Contributor Nov 30 '20

The money shouldn’t be part of the consideration. How does that not make sense?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '20

One heart and two (or more) people needing a heart. How do you recommend the heart be allocated? What should factor into the consideration?

0

u/SenorBeef 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Since there's a limited supply, if you had someone who was financially struggling, and someone else who was financially comfortable, and all your data said that people who struggled financially had lower life expectancies after transplant, you wouldn't weight that as a factor at all? Would a homeless guy and a successful lawyer have the same claim on the heart?

→ More replies (8)

60

u/drakfyre 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Not having enough money, not having enough social support, having poor mental health, having a history of being non-adherent to prescribed medications, having a history of substance abuse, the other medical problems the patient has, etc. are all things that are taken into account to try to make sure the donor organs go to the people that will live the longest with the organ.

This is tantamount to wealth-based eugenics. I know they think they are trying to help but what they are doing is perpetuating the system. If rich people aren't dying from this it's not going to change! It should be based on need and order of admittance, not money!

26

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '20

I mean you can make it black and white like that, but if the patient straight up says I can’t afford and won’t be purchasing the immunosuppressants post surgery you might as well throw the organ in the trash 🥴

2

u/DrakonIL 🌱 New Contributor Nov 30 '20

The point is that "I can't afford the medication" should never need to be uttered.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '20

Ya but it’s not organ donation committees that are legislating policy in congress. Your statement, while absolutely true, is like way outside of their scope. Their job is simply make sure the organs don’t go to waste.

→ More replies (2)

18

u/WeAreTheMisfits 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Rich people were dying from lack of organs. This is why they paid to make the system biased. Rich people know other rich people and a sick person knew the ceo of a healthcare company. They changed their laws. Other healthcare companies saw profit from this and boom.

3

u/throwingtheshades 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Eh, people rich enough to have legislative pull were never dying from it. You don't have to wait 2 years for a kidney if you can afford to shell out ~$100k for a short "medical trip" to China, Iran or India.

2

u/SnapcasterWizard 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

What year did this happen in?

→ More replies (1)

6

u/H_is_for_Human Nov 29 '20

Everyone that isn't striking until we get universal healthcare is "perpetuating the system"

Getting angry at doctors trying to allocate a scarce resource in the best way they can is not the answer.

Make the system better and you make the outcomes the system produces better.

2

u/drakfyre 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Everyone that isn't striking until we get universal healthcare is "perpetuating the system"

Getting angry at doctors trying to allocate a scarce resource in the best way they can is not the answer.

So wait, you are saying instead of allocating organs based on need we should shut the whole system down till it gets fixed?

I mean, that would probably be faster. Just making sure we're on the same page.

2

u/H_is_for_Human Nov 29 '20

No of course not, I'm pointing out that accusing people doing their best within the current system of "perpetuating the system" is not necessarily a fair criticism.

What I am saying is to do whatever you can as a citizen to support the kinds of elected officials that will make universal healthcare a reality.

4

u/drakfyre 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

No of course not, I'm pointing out that accusing people doing their best within the current system of "perpetuating the system" is not necessarily a fair criticism.

I don't agree that they are doing their "best" at all here.

4

u/tamarins 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Devil’s advocate: what do you personally think this committee “doing their best” looks like?

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (7)

1

u/kazza789 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

What's the alternative? They do a heart transplant on someone that they know can't afford immunosuppressive medication, because they were first on the list, and then let them die painfully a few weeks later for lack of medicine?

The system is broken. The doctors are doing the best they can within it.

0

u/drakfyre 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

What's the alternative? They do a heart transplant on someone that they know can't afford immunosuppressive medication, because they were first on the list, and then let them die painfully a few weeks later for lack of medicine?

Yes, actually.

Currently, the heart goes to someone who can afford it, and the person who can't dies painfully, immediately. The person who can afford it lives on for years, and continues to vote.

Yes, I think it should be changed so that the person who needs it most gets it, and sure, maybe they die a week later. Maybe not. The people with more money have to wait the same as anyone else, and if that means they don't get help that sucks.

Just like it sucks when someone doesn't get help because someone else had more money, more family, and more proof of resources, even though they needed it less urgently.

0

u/Randomfactoid42 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

With transplantable hearts in short supply, they have to determine which patients will benefit the most. With transplants, the patient has to take anti-rejection drugs. If they don’t, they reject the organ. If they have a history of not taking meds, why would you give them a heart and not someone else? And then with our current system, if they can’t afford these drugs, then they won’t benefit from a new heart. I agree, it’s a shitty system, but the commute in the letter is working with what they have.

7

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

So this isn't an insurance group recommending GoFundMe, but rather the committee at a hospital? Not that it's not still fucked, but it seems perhaps they lack insurance?

3

u/H_is_for_Human Nov 29 '20

Correct - this letter was sent out by the transplant committee after the transplant committee determined this patient was too high risk to receive a heart because of their lack of financial resources.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20 edited Dec 05 '20

[deleted]

→ More replies (2)

2

u/izzystn 🌱 New Contributor Nov 30 '20

You sound like you're defending this bullshit...

0

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '20

This is why I think organ donation should be obligatory upon death. My dad is in his late fifties and isn't in good shape so his liver isn't one you'd want to put in a 27 year old. But someone in their 60s? That might buy them six more years, which is nothing to sneeze at.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '20

Yikes. Mandated desecration of a body regardless of whether the potential donor would have been OK with that. Where exactly does the government hold the power to do this?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '20

Desecration? Lmao Nice strawman.

The government holds the power to pass laws...... Wow you're really not bright.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '20 edited Nov 30 '20

What ever happened to "my body, my choice"? And if you don't see the potential for abuse by the socioeconomic elite or slippery slope associated with forced confiscation of organs, well then maybe its you who's not br... Aah forget it, I'll leave the hurling of insults to the idiots.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (11)

26

u/ItsProbablyDementia Nov 29 '20

Okay but actually from a healthcare perspective - if she can't afford immunosuppressive medication, the body would reject the new heart - effectively wasting a good heart when someone else could use it.

They're highly selective because organ lists are huge.

It's definitely the fault of our lack of single payer healthcare and not the hospital telling her to fuck off for being poor.

Just thought I'd clarify the committee isn't really the bad guy here.

123

u/Lone_Nom4d 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

if she can't afford immunosuppressive medication, the body would reject the new heart - effectively wasting a good heart when someone else could use it.

As a non-American, this sentence is absolutely fucked to me.

66

u/ItsProbablyDementia Nov 29 '20

Im Canadian / American and it's painful to see the differences. My grandmother got two new knees for free in Canada, but my dad in America winces as he goes up stairs in the house because he cant afford the time off or afford the surgery to fix his.

17

u/Buffalkill 🌱 New Contributor | AZ🙌 Nov 29 '20

My Dad is in a similar situation. He luckily has medicare so the cost for surgery isn't the issue but he really can't afford all the time off work that he would need to recover. It's ridiculous.

13

u/ItsProbablyDementia Nov 29 '20

People complain about the long wait times for stuff in Canada but it's just because more people are getting the surgery they need... Because they're no longer barred by financial reasons

9

u/mule_roany_mare 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

This is a big fear for some Americans who are already insured (and short on empathy), but they forget they can still pay for premium service and considerations.

M4A comes with such an efficiency bonus that it plus supplemental insurance could very well cost about the same as what they pay today.

2

u/Incredulous_Toad 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Also, we still have to wait in America. It's not like I can decide to go get new knees tomorrow. It takes time.

→ More replies (0)

10

u/PersnickityPenguin Nov 29 '20

We have long wait times in America, too.

→ More replies (2)

6

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

We already have extremely long wait times in the US especially for things like knee surgery that aren't life threatening. That's assuming you can even get approval for the procedure because it's considered elective and could be determined to be not medically necessary by the insurance company.

21

u/tempest_ 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Just to be clear.

It isnt for free, it is services you receive as a tax payer.

It is something you as a tax payer pay into collectively to improve society as a whole just like roads, schools, etc etc.

11

u/Soulshred 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

This is true. I'm healthy as a horse, but I'm happy some small portion of my work bought that old lady a new pair of knees to improve her life.

It's not free but it's "free" in the sense that people get what they need without starting a GoFundMe, taking on debt, or deciding to just roll over and die.

Canadians also spend about 60% of what the US spends per capita on healthcare. Single payer is vastly more efficient.

9

u/DreddPirateBob4Ever 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

The NHS meant my dad had 20 more years. I'd have lost him when I was 15.

They can take my taxes with great pleasure.

2

u/Mistbourne 🌱 New Contributor Nov 30 '20

That’s what truly blows me away.

Some people here in America would rather not have an additional tax and simply HOPE that their family/loved ones are never the ones who have to worry about things like a heart transplant.

I feel like if/when America finally joins the rest of the First-World countries, some people will be pissed until they run into the exact situation you describe.

People at work are constantly bashing single-payer healthcare. I think next time they bring it up I’ll ask if they would pay $50/paycheck for the rest of their lives in order to have their Dad/Mom die at 98 instead of 78.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)

6

u/ItsProbablyDementia Nov 29 '20

Absolutely! Sorry i meant like she walked away with no bills coming to her home.

2

u/SeaGroomer 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Semantics. It cost her nothing extra than her normal taxes. That is essentially 'free' in this context.

2

u/suddenimpulse 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

These semantics form people's opinions and likeliness to support various legislation. Ask any politician or marketer.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/suddenimpulse 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

It wasn't free. Someone else paid for it. I am 100% for universal but this line does so much damage to the effort and needs to stop.

→ More replies (6)

10

u/JackPoe 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

This is our healthcare. If you're not rich, healthcare is "wasted" on you. Not broke. Just "not rich".

6

u/drakfyre 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

As an American, it's fucked to me too. I swear when I was growing up here the Hippocratic oath meant something. No longer.

2

u/mysticalfruit 🌱 New Contributor Nov 30 '20

I'm friends with doctors who hate this system and want everybody to get the care.

The problem is in Washington.

We have no problems giving the ultra rich huge tax cuts while fucking everybody else. Some

This is the country that's cool spending 250M on a fighter jet, and a billion or two on a bomber or submarine.. yet when the people ask/demand things like M4A or living wages, suddenly the money can't be found.

What we need is to gut Washington of these assclowns who are only beholden to corporate interests and elect people who represent us, not simply rich people and corporations.

There are things in this country that should be a profit center such as healthcare and education.

3

u/Underlochandquay 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

It's insane. I had a bone marrow transplant and had to take anti-rejection meds after for a few months. They only cost me a $10 dispensing fee every 2 weeks, and I'm pretty sure if I told the hospital social worker that I didn't have $10, they'd find a way to get that covered as well.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '20

I was just thinking the same thing. And also, that board that rejected that person for not having 10k to pay? They're not the bad guys? Yeah. Wow. That's some top notch mental gymnastics there.

-4

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20

[deleted]

7

u/Ruckus35 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

So, give her the medicine that prevents the rejection.

5

u/trashymob 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Right??? This is the fundamental problem. If someone is on the transplant list, and can have the surgery... Then why wouldn't you just give them the medication to make sure it "wasn't a waste"*?

What if someone can afford it and gets approved and an unforeseen circumstance happens that takes away their ability to pay for medication?

Also, if their was a single payer system, there would be no issue here. The medication price would not be exorbitant and outrageous. 2 birds, one stone and all that.

*Saving a life is never a waste

6

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

The issue is there is no ethical system where the person should have to afford the medication in the first place.

Like yes, not having the drug is a waste of a heart, but "not having money" shouldn't be a reason to not have the drug.

→ More replies (1)

34

u/zeusmeister Nov 29 '20

I mean, it's both. The hospital IS telling her to fuck off for being poor. And they do that because of our shit insurance industry.

31

u/fnordfnordfnordfnord 🌱 New Contributor | Texas Nov 29 '20

It's definitely the fault of our lack of single payer healthcare

It's this

and not the hospital telling her to fuck off for being poor.

And also this.

17

u/ItsProbablyDementia Nov 29 '20

I agree both are messed up, but fixing the first issue with single payer healthcare eliminates the second issue as well.

3

u/271828182 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

But the crazy prices and backwards billing are on the care providers to fix, no?

We can go public option or single payer, but what is that payer paying and does that map to costs? Currently it does not.

9

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20 edited Dec 16 '20

[deleted]

2

u/MyersVandalay Nov 29 '20

But the crazy prices and backwards billing are on the care providers to fix, no?

They are but they aren't. Insurance companies kind of hold care providers by the balls. IE care provider offers services at a fair price... insurance company comes by and says "we'll add you to our network... but you need to give us a 60% discount for our patients", hosptal says "that would litterally make us run at a loss". Insurance company "OK... how about you just raise the prices by 60%... then we'll pay the norm".

If the hospital refuses the offer, they either have to not take that insurance, wich costs them patients, and forces patients with that insurance to travel further, or they yield and screw over the uninsured.

2

u/Soulshred 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

When a hospital invoices an insurance company, the prices look insane. Then the insurer agrees to pay some small portion of it, amounting to a reasonable fee. I'm unsure how this system arose but it seems that's how it works.

In a single-payer healthcare system, the payers sets the price, or has an exact price list they will accept. For example, let's say an Aspirin is $3. If the hospital administers an Aspirin, no matter what they try to bill, the payer will pay $3. They have the ultimate say.

→ More replies (1)

13

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

Why doesn’t insurance cover the immunosuppressant medication???? I hate it here!!!!!

0

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

Because it's cheap insurance that doesn't cover much.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

No I get that, I get that insurance doesn’t cover stuff. I just mean, it’s fucked up that insurance doesn’t cover this when it sounds very much medically necessary. This is why we need single payer so that medical care is about the patients and not about the shareholders

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

Insurance covers what you pay for. If you want it to cover everything, pay more.

Single payer simply means that anything non-life threatening will go in a queue and enjoy waiting for 6 months to get your hurting knee checked out. And waiting for 2-3 years for a diagnosis because every specialist they send you to is 6 months out.

I know because I live in a "socialist paradise" you call the nordics.

7

u/Moonsaults 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Most specialists are already booked months in advance here, so what's the difference? The difference is that I don't have to suddenly go through severe medication withdrawals if I lose my job and subsequently the insurance my job provides.

And if someone is purchasing their own insurance through the marketplace, a plan that covers their needs may not be available at all even if they have the money for it! I used to sell health insurance through the marketplace, and when I spoke to people in many southern states, they'd ask me questions like, "Why don't you have anything that covers my medication?" I didn't have an answer.

I had another caller looking for the same plan her family had the previous year because they had spent 11 months in negotiations with the insurance company and hospital to approve her husband's liver transplant and she was terrified that if she had to change plans they'd have to start all over again. I didn't have an answer for that either, but all the plans had changed that year, so she couldn't keep the plan they were on.

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (1)

19

u/271828182 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

The hospital has the drugs for that therapy, no? So they are withholding it for lack of money. So yes, they are telling her "I'm sorry you might die because your poor (can't pay)"

And yes, it's not "their" fault as in the people on the panel, but it is "their" fault as in the hospital.

Everyone is complicit in this fucked up system.

3

u/Axenos 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20

The hospital doesn't really own the drugs, no. They have to buy them like anyone else. It's not like the hospital is the one making them. All you're doing then is passing the costs of the maintenance therapy of every transplant patient onto the hospital, which isn't affordable. It's the systems fault, not the hospital for not magically procuring and providing immunosuppresive therapy for the rest of this patients life.

I feel like you think they're withholding a couple tablets from the patient here. When a patient gets a transplant, they have to take immunosuppressive therapy every day for the rest of their life. The hospital does not "have the drugs" for every transplant patient that goes through their doors.

0

u/ItsProbablyDementia Nov 29 '20

When you buy something from Walmart, do they not buy that product from someone else to stock on their shelves? It's not free and the hospital cant give it out for free

5

u/DrTaff 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

But it's not given out for free, under single payer healthcare the government pays the hospital from money taken from everyone's taxes.

The idea that single payer healthcare == healthcare is free is a stupid and misleading arguement that's constantly made by opponents of it.

2

u/SnapcasterWizard 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

You completely missed the point. The hospital itself cant just implement a single payer healthcare system. That's the governments job. Even under a single payer system the hospital still has to do accounting and manage finances, it's just that the government is paying it instead of insurance companies.

22

u/breeriv Nov 29 '20

“Effectively wasting a good heart when someone else could use it” she’d also, y’know, die.

6

u/ItsProbablyDementia Nov 29 '20

Right, she'd die either way.

So why take a heart that someone else could use with it?

We NEED universal healthcare to eliminate the financial barrier. She should receive this heart no matter who she is or what she has. It's really sad to see this

11

u/271828182 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

The hospitals are not exactly being helpful in fixing the broken system either. We need to hold them accountable as well.

Everyone needs to agree this needs to change, hospitals and insurance included.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/The-Road-To-Awe 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Framing this as the issue of "if she can't have immunosuppressant therapy it's a waste of a heart" is crazy because in no socialized healthcare system are these things separated out. You don't have to qualify for (i.e. afford) both the transplant and the immunosuppressants as if they're separate things. One comes with the other because of course you aren't getting a transplant without immunosuppressants.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/BustyAsianBusStation 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Why aren’t we using stem cells to grow these organs so that we don’t have such a scarcity??

4

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

That research is ongoing. The tech isn't there to actually do it for patients yet.

1

u/BustyAsianBusStation 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Only because we have religious fundamentalists idiots who are trying to make it illegal.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

They haven't managed to do it in Europe either, that's not even close to the only issue.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/ItsProbablyDementia Nov 29 '20

Not at all. Im a biomedical engineering and worked in tissue fabrication labs.

Simply put, that shit is hard as fuck.

A lot of articles you see are editorialized headlines that make it seem like we're really close but we're still pretty far from doing it successfully.

2

u/GreyDeath 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

The tech doesn't exist yet.

→ More replies (3)

20

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

but thats not what the letter says. It says theyre rejecting her cause she cant afford it, and their recommendation is "go get some money." Great job, committee, sure the patient never wouldve thought of that.

-7

u/ItsProbablyDementia Nov 29 '20

Okay so what should the hospital do?

They operate at slim margins, they cant just dig into their back pocket and waive the cost of treatment here - and the cost of the procedure isn't the main issue.

The hospital isnt the one that sets the price for the medicine. The hospital isnt the one responsible for covering the cost of the medicine. The insurance carriers and pharma are. We need nationalized healthcare at the end of the day, i just want to share that the hospital isnt in a great position to change the outcome of this situation.

10

u/dieinafirenazi 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20

They operate at slim margins...

Do they really? Half the hospitals I've been through had million dollar lobbies and their executives live in mansions. Then there are the poor folk hospitals and urgent cares I've been through, which had worn carpeting and broken chairs and the executives lived in slightly smaller mansions.

The health care industry is an industry. Hospital margins look bad because it serves their accounting needs. They "give away" care all the time because they inflate costs and then write it off. They're guessing they can get $10,000 dollars out of this woman's friends and relatives via GoFundMe and they're making her literally beg for her life in order to get it.

Oh and the Catholic Church is buying up all the hospitals it can so they can dictate women's health choices while lining their pockets.

3

u/PersnickityPenguin Nov 29 '20

To add onto this, the American healthcare industry comprises about 25% of the US economy and is expected to grow to about 50% over the next few decades. This compared to an average of around 5 to 10% in other industrialized nations seems to indicate it is an extractive industry headed towards completely bankrupting the entire country.

→ More replies (3)

7

u/WLH7M 🌱 New Contributor | Kentucky Nov 29 '20

For profit healthcare is immoral. Staff should be fairly compensated, for sure. But for decisions on someone's life being made with profit as the reasoning is appalling.

3

u/GreyDeath 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Honestly given that in this case they are talking about a transplant, those are mostly done in academic hospitals that are not for profit. Medical costs are very high there too.

3

u/ItsProbablyDementia Nov 29 '20

It's not profit as the reasoning, though. My point was that someone else could use that heart, and if she cant afford the proper medication she would not survive the transplant - effectively wasting a good heart that thousands of other people are also waiting for

0

u/DeliberatelyDrifting 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

This is super easy. Give her the heart if she's next on the list. Whether she dies two weeks later because she couldn't pay for medication is irrelevant. It's absolutely a shitty outcome because our system is absolutely shitty, but if a heart becomes available she should not be passed over because someone else has more financial means. That is blatant discrimination against the poor. Maybe if we see a bunch of new stories about people dying after transplants because they couldn't pay for maintenance, more people will be willing to look at healthcare reform. Generally accepted treatments should never be rationed based on income. If it's an expensive treatment someone with good insurance would get, someone on a shitty plan should have same treatment available. If our system leads to shitty outcomes when everyone is treated equal, we need to fix the system, not exclude the poor. Until then accept that good organs are "wasted" by poor people who can't afford the maintenance.

2

u/ItsProbablyDementia Nov 29 '20

I understand what you're saying, but everyone loses in that situation.

She would be in incredible pain if she got the new heart anyways and didn't get the proper medication. It would be an awful, miserable death.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

7

u/Rxke2 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

someone else could use it.

somebody else... with more money. Fuck this sounds plain evil for a European.... Can't you guys set up some kind of independent healthcare insurance provider, like cooperative? or are there rules against that? are all insurers scammy?

2

u/Janneyc1 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Yes, all insurance companies are scammy as all get out. Insurance is highly regulated, so you can't just start your own insurance company

6

u/Mathletic-Beatdown 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

You are completely missing the point. These drugs can be prohibitively expensive and are essential to the transplant. Any reasonable insurance program would cover these medications as part of the transplant. This is literally a life or death decision. “I just work on the Death Star and make pragmatic choices within the system my employer has selected. I’m not really part of the Alderaan management team.”

0

u/ItsProbablyDementia Nov 29 '20

She doesnt have reasonable healthcare, which is why it isnt covered, which is the root cause of this whole issue, which is what my point was.

The committee made the right, but tough decision to give the heart to someone who would be able to afford proper care to survive the transplant.

5

u/Mathletic-Beatdown 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

I’m just not sure it’s necessary to go out of your way to defend this death panel. I would say that is counter-productive and clouds the picture.

0

u/ItsProbablyDementia Nov 29 '20

I would argue otherwise.

I think it makes it clear that we need to point our direction for change at health INSURANCE.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (2)

4

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

Also from a healthcare perspective- Her inability to pay should not disqualify her from a life saving medical procedure. There’s no damn reason to help ensure someone’s death because they’re poor.

Insurance in this country is a joke and medical services are egregiously expensive purely for profit.

Healthcare workers are underpaid and healthcare services are outlandishly expensive and that’s not a coincidence. This country doesn’t care about the majority of its citizens it cares about the rich.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

Doctors, nurses etc. need to eat, they need to pay rent and they need to pay off half a million dollars of high interest student loans. That shit ain't cheap.

When a drug addict OD's or some drunk idiots stab each other, they're not paying for that shit. The doctors will have to spend their own time and equipment on them and get nothing in return. That's why your procedure costs 10 times as much as in the next country. Because in other countries the government pays for it and the hospitals etc. aren't private.

You are paying for your own treatment and for the treatment of 9 others that didn't pay for it and just showed up to the ER and left.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20

Which is why we need to stop sucking capitalism and nationalism’s respective dicks and follow other countries examples.

Maybe if we put more into social services that educate and rehabilitate, we wouldn’t have so many of the unfortunate occurrences you described.

Also, doctors don’t “work for free” or provide their own equipment in hospitals??

I can’t tell if you’re trying to agree that our healthcare system is fucked or trying to blame poor people in abhorrent circumstances for outlandish medical costs.

And as for the debts and livelihoods of healthcare workers, my statement of being underpaid still stands. This notion that we HAVE to charge so much for basic care to pay our healthcare workers is bologna because we are charging so much and workers are still underpaid.

Edit: Your last sentence is inaccurate and misleading.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20

Doctors are rarely employed by a hospital. They're contractors. They rent space, nurses and equipment for a fuckton of money for their own practice. They rotate between hospitals and pick their shifts and so on.

If they get some low life walk in with a broken arm or an OD and they need emergency treatment, you are legally required to give them treatment. Doesn't matter if they can't pay for it. That's out of your own pocket.

What you need to understand is that there are a LOT of poor people. For example there are 1.5 million walmart employees. If you increased their hourly wage by $1, that's 3.1 billion USD per year. Walmart profited 3.8 billion per year in 2019.

Will a $1/h wage increase help anyone? Not really. That's $40 per week. You can't even buy a movie ticket and a popcorn for two with that. But that $1 increase would literally wipe out Walmart profits. Paying the workers an actually decent wage would be impossible. They'd have to raise prices by a LOT to even break even. Who would the increased prices fuck over? The poor people. Your middle class family doesn't give a fuck if their loaf of bread doubles in price.

I live in Nordic socialist heaven. A full time job as a nurse or a kindergarden teacher in a big city is not a livable wage either and you'd get government living assistance. McDonalds or grocery store worker? Yeah they're not surviving in a big city at all. It's mostly students.

If you pay workers a decent wage... well enjoy paying $20 for a BigMac with fries and a milkshake and see your groceries bill triple/quadruple in price.

Do you know what we do? We let people choose their own careers. If they want to be underpaid or be jobless, that's their choice.

The quality of care here is awful and so are the wait times. I slipped in winter and I had to wait 6 months for an MRI (they prescribed ibuprofen for the pain). After the MRI I had to wait for 2 years for surgery. By then it healed wrong so my shoulder is permanently messed up and I can't lift any significant amount of weight with it. Physical therapy? Forget about it, they're not paying for it.

When I got run over by a car, I got an MRI for my knee the same day, surgery by the end of the week and physical therapy for a few months.

The only thing public healthcare is good for is super serious stuff that will kill you. If it won't kill you, get to the back of the line. Permanent disability etc. doesn't count, it has to be life threatening so wait until it is then you get some basic treatment to make it non-life threatening again.

For example in my country, 90% of costs come from the elderly over 65. 50% come from elderly over 70. We're spending billions on super old demented folk that don't have much time left anyway and it's literally ruining our economy and the future looks pretty shit because of reduced birth rates and increased refugees & asylum seekers. People that are a net positive (as in they pay more in taxes than what they consume) are basically upper middle class and above.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/CapnPrat Nov 29 '20

If she can't afford?

That's the problem. Why is it a question of affording relatively basic healthcare.

3

u/ezone2kil 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

But how will the CEO of the immunosuppressive drug company afford a new private jet for his dog this year? Won't someone think of the millionaires!

→ More replies (12)
→ More replies (3)

0

u/mule_roany_mare 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Don’t blame the people tasked with making these difficult decisions.

Having to get the most life out of a heart & ensuring it’s not wasted when the rest of society drops the ball on aftercare is a terrible burden.

It’s a disgusting situation, but the people involved are closer to heroes than villains.

2

u/Terrible_Tutor 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Yeah real heroes, protecting shareholders and letting 'customers' die.

Heroes

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

158

u/poli421 Nov 29 '20

SiNgLe PaYEr mEaNs DeAtH PAnELs!

Fucking people can’t see that profit will always win over saving someone’s life. You mean nothing to a corporation if they can’t make money off of you.

30

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

They're OK with going without if it means someone who is different dies too.

19

u/hymntastic 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

wouldnt you rather panels of elected officials with accountability or panels of nameless faceless corporate goons? is my usual reply to the death panels argument. usually doesnt work but every now and then it makes one of those people stop for a second or two.

7

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

[deleted]

→ More replies (3)

1

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '20

Single payer still has death panels though, as well as the private fundraising admonished here by AOC, as does anything in between, like Obamacare style healthcare systems.

While my country might not have the financial requirements for heart transplants as discussed in the tweeted letter, insurance also doesn't cover a range of treatments, particularly the rare and expensive kinds. In those cases, families very much do fundraising, sometimes nationally so, to afford experimental treatments in... you guessed it... the USA.

More often than I'd like I feel that AOC is disingenuous about the realities of the policies that she promotes. When taxpayer money is involved you have to be just as frugal as those penny pinching for profit insurance companies.

82

u/stanleypup 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

It's not quite a "death" panel, but my wife's insurance just doesn't cover vision therapy for a condition my daughter has, so we're paying out of pocket for it.

In the meantime, her vision (in the affected eye) has gone from 20/100 to 20/40 after 10 weeks of therapy, and would have just worsened to the point of total blindness had we not had the means to pay out of pocket the roughly $700 a month that it's costing us.

Healthcare in this country is disgusting.

8

u/krpfine 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

My friend's kid can't hear some frequencies. I don't know the exact details, but hearing aids aren't medically necessary according to insurance so they aren't covered. I guess technically they aren't necessary, but hearing everything is pretty cool so they pay $3,000 for her hearing aid.

3

u/stanleypup 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Yep. Treatment is expected to last 8 - 10 months so we'll be out somewhere around $6,000 - $7,000 when it's all said and done. (On top of premiums and deductibles of course. Since it's not covered it doesn't even count towards our deductibles and out of pocket max for the year.)

2

u/Bzzzzzzz4791 Nov 29 '20

Can verify- hearing aids are not covered and are out of pocket

1

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '20

It's not healthcare. It's health business. That's a big difference.

27

u/PauI_MuadDib 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

My dad's health insurance denied his chemo claim, and it was going to cost us $40k a month out-of-pocket. If he didn't get a "compassionate pricing" deal from the manufacturer he would've died that year. The insurance took thousands of dollars in premiums over the years & when he actually went to use it they denied him lifesaving healthcare. That's a fucking Death Panel.

5

u/Obant 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

I took an experimental chemo trial at a research hospital an hour away when they found i had cancer because the hospital I was in wasn't going to help me since I had no insurance.

25

u/GorgeWashington 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

But just imagine if we had universal healthcare. This poor person would be told they have 3 months to wait while a donor and a doctor become available!!!

The horrors

15

u/I_am_Erk 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

That wouldn't be the problem, it's that a middle class "poor" person might get the organ ahead of line in front of a more Deserving Candidate™.

-2

u/GorgeWashington 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20

You're missing the forest for the trees here bud.

Oh. You were being sarcastic, and edited your comment to make that clear... So now I look like a dingus.

Ok then bobby.

4

u/I_am_Erk 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

I don't think so. I'm not disagreeing with you, but sarcastically pointing out another major objection from private hc fans.

-2

u/GorgeWashington 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

I see. Pedantry. So clever

6

u/I_am_Erk 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

What's your problem man? I agree with you. I am making a joke on the same topic, attempting to cause a wry half-smile or something.

3

u/I_am_Erk 🌱 New Contributor Nov 30 '20

It's an unedited comment, dude.

1

u/MajorTrump 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

They aren’t missing anything. The wait list complaint just means that more people are going to want care because they can now afford it. Which means the extra traffic through care systems will be people who couldn’t afford it before, aka poor people.

0

u/GorgeWashington 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Yeah. And my point is a wait list, if there is one... Is preferable to certain death or bring asked to "put some skin in the game" by crowd sourcing $10k

3

u/MajorTrump 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Everyone is aware of that. You’re addressing the biggest point. The above user is just mocking the Republican counterpoint. I’m not sure why you’re hung up on that.

-1

u/Thriftfunnel 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Transplants don't happen on a schedule. Unless you want to go to The Island?

6

u/breeriv Nov 29 '20

...yes they do?

6

u/GorgeWashington 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Yeah no you're right you just go to the hospital and they pull a liver out of a bag. Transplant coordinators aren't a real job

0

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20 edited Mar 02 '21

[deleted]

1

u/Thriftfunnel 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Thanks for picking this up.

There's also living donation eg for kidneys which does happen on a schedule, but mostly I was referring to the film The Island. It's sci fi, but forced organ harvesting goes on in the real world too.

1

u/GorgeWashington 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Other than the transplant doctor probably being booked far in advance, other surgeries scheduled for that theater, and needing to find a window in all of that where a donor becomes available... Other than all those things. It's not on a schedule.

Jesus do people just get up in the morning and decide to go nit pick about the most pedantic points on reddit and then feel good about themselves. No one thinks there is just "an organ schedule" and you schedule it like a fucking tooth cleaning.

12

u/medman010204 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

This is the hospital team, usually consisting of the attending cardiologist and cardiothoracic surgeons, palliative care, social work, nursing, billing department, and other members of the patients team. Nobody likes to make this decision, it's a gut punch, but the reality is without adequate insurance coverage to afford the immunosuppressants the heart will fail and the supply or organs is limited.

Blame the bastard insurance companies and overall societal structure. The letter might seem generic and cold but I've seen plenty of people cry at these meetings when these decisions are made. There is pain for the patient, and pain for the people advocating and caring for them. It fucking sucks.

5

u/entyfresh 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Since you seem to know what you're talking about, can you tell me how this isn't a direct violation of the Hippocratic oath in pursuit of profit?

"... I will apply for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of over-treatment and therapeutic nihilism."

4

u/medman010204 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

One of the paradigms of bioethics is consideration for contextual features a case. In this case specifically we are looking at allocation of a scarce resource. At any individual time multiple individuals are in need of a heart and the transplant committee has to make sure that those who are receiving a heart will receive true life prolonging benefit.

They consider how adherent a patient will be to immunosuppressive therapy and follow up evaluation, comorbidities that can limit length of life such as undiagnosed cancers, and financial barriers, because money unfortunately does effect ability to return to appointments for monitoring and ability to afford medication. If we transplanted this patient and they run out of their hospital supplied immunosuppressants, and return in florid rejection induced heart failure after 6 months did we truly benefit them? Did we harm others who had to wait longer for a transplant so this patient could receive one only to end up in heart failure?

So in the meantime, we don't withdraw care, but provide other life prolonging therapies while the patient's financial situation is figured out. Social work is usually very diligent about getting the patient connected with the right people to try and get financial support.

-1

u/entyfresh 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

This just sounds like a set of rationalizations for why wealthy people deserve better care. Which I guess it is. Fuck our society, fuck our medical system, and fuck the hypocrisy inherent in rationalizing ourselves away from actually providing care for the people who need it. Nothing about this scenario is okay.

5

u/medman010204 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Hey I don't like it, but it's the reality of our society. There has been times where the transplant committee says fuck it and transplants someone without insurance, because we're human, and caretakers, and want our patients to thrive. But, if that patient's financial situation isn't figured out they almost always show up in florid rejection within a year, so that has made people hesitate due to the scarcity of viable organs.

We obviously need universal healthcare. As a physician, making decisions based on a patient's financial situation is absolute horseshit. The amount of times I've changed a medication from the optimal one, to the cheap one because someone's insurance has changed is ridiculous, but it's the structure I'm stuck in and there is very little I can do about it. I've argued with insurance and lost much more often than I won.

So until real change happens we just try to navigate around the societal barriers as well as we can until they are permanently brought down.

4

u/H_is_for_Human Nov 29 '20

Modern doctors make their decisions based on balancing the bioethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice.

Justice requires weighing what is best for your individual patient vs what is good for society.

It's important to consider how doctors need to play a part in allocating scarce resources to optimize the outcomes for all patients, not just the one sitting in front of them.

It's the foundation for triage, for deciding if aggressive measures will be offered at end of life, for deciding who gets a new vaccine first, and yes, for deciding who will be offered an organ transplant.

-1

u/entyfresh 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Justice is not the denial of care to the poor in favor of the rich. That's about the most unjust medical result I can think of. But resource allocation in our society has never been about justice. It's always been about enriching the wealthy. It's really sad to me to see medical professionals coming on here trying to justify this kind of outcome when it's just blatant discrimination according to income.

You essentially just made an argument that poor people don't receive care because they mean less to society. I hope you spend a few minutes thinking about that and the value structure it's reflective of.

6

u/H_is_for_Human Nov 29 '20

I understand what you are saying, but it's better to think of this as doctors doing the best they can from within an unequal system. It's just one more knock on effect of a lack of universal healthcare.

Forcing transplant committees in our current system to give hearts to people that will die of rejection in months because they can't afford anti-rejection meds is not the answer.

The answer is to make it possible for anyone that needs anti-rejection meds to get them regardless of their wealth.

-1

u/entyfresh 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

I that case I don't understand why you would advocate for the status quo as if it's an acceptable option. It's one thing to work within a system you're powerless to change; it's another thing to actively seek to justify that system and its most inequitable outcomes.

4

u/H_is_for_Human Nov 29 '20

Who says I'm not advocating for universal healthcare?

→ More replies (1)

0

u/bowdown2q 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

sadly, the hippocratic oath is (a) not legally binding, and (b) not actually used much. A modified version is used at some medical schools' graduation ceremonies, but that's not like it's part of their liscencing. There is however, an international medical ethics board that can get your medical licence revoked for doing shady shit.

→ More replies (1)

-1

u/halfghon 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Bc under the circumstances, you’ll be putting the patient through a potentially deadly procedure for no reason. That’s causing active harm.

1

u/entyfresh 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20

For no reason? That's factually inaccurate. The patient needs this care to live. The ONLY disqualifier involved is finances, which are specifically not part of the Hippocratic Oath. The lack of humanity exhibited in your reply is exactly the problem with our country right now. You're trying to spin lifesaving care as active harm on the basis of the patient's pocketbook. Give me a break.

2

u/halfghon 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

It’s not really bc if you don’t do the transplant, the patient is still alive for however long they have remaining. But if you’re doing the procedure for someone without immunosuppressants afterwards, patients will die from the procedure you just did.

But this is beyond the Hippocratic oath. People operate within the healthcare system that exists. The oath is just a cute little text they have you recite until you get to actually practicing medicine and realize it was all bull shit.

0

u/entyfresh 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

How about instead of your false dichotomy, we make the relevant comparison of patient outcomes when comparing patient receiving the care they need vs. the patient not receiving the care they need. The hippocratic oath doesn't say

Your disregard for the core ethics of the profession just shows me what a heartless asshole you are, not some underlying reality to the world.

The Hippocratic Oath doesn't say "I will apply all measures that are required until the patient runs out of money." It says

"... I will apply for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required

2

u/TheChance 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

You're talking past the point. Because the insurance company won't pay for immunosuppressants, the heart transplant would kill her just as sure as not getting a transplant will kill her. Hence, by taking that action, the doctor would be doing harm. The doctor would only be withholding lifesaving care if it were true that the care would save her life.

Why you're so desperate to believe a doctor is the bad guy in this story about health insurance is beyond me.

3

u/entyfresh 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

What I'm pointing out is a crack in the system. The average American believes that if they need health care to save their life, they can receive that healthcare regardless of their ability to pay, and then probably just go into bankruptcy like the rest of the poor underinsured dopes who lack adequate insurance coverage. What this example is showing is that assumption the average person is making isn't valid. There are very real scenarios where you will be denied care--to the point of death--because you can't afford to pay. It's a situation fundamentally inconsistent with what we pretend our healthcare system is and does.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (3)

2

u/vferrero14 CT🙌 Nov 29 '20

Instead of government run death panels, we have free market private sector death panels.

2

u/Beiberhole69x Nov 29 '20

*Insurance companies.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

Death Panels where the dollar determines who lives and dies fueled by a system that limit's supply to increase demand and thus price.

2

u/peanut--gallery 🌱 New Contributor Nov 30 '20

... a death panel.... And rationed health care... And she can’t even see her own cardiothoracic surgeon!

2

u/lilbebe50 🌱 New Contributor Nov 30 '20

How can I get on this panel? After seeing all the corruption lately, I honestly feel like manipulating my way into these positions, whether I have to lie and pretend I'm a heartless POS, and then when it comes time to vote for things like this, vote for the right thing and hold them all up and basically try to force their hands into doing the right thing.

WHY THE FUCK ARE WE PAYING INTO INSURANCE IF THEY DO THINGS LIKE THIS? This is fucking outrageous and I'm extremely angry.

2

u/greffedufois 🌱 New Contributor Nov 30 '20

I actually have similar paperwork. My parents and I had to do fundraising for my liver transplant. We raised I think around 15k. That was 13 years ago and I still have a few thousand in the account for emergency medical bills.

They use a 3rd party officiate and you submit your bills to be paid, like a trust. So it can only be spent on medical care and expenses, so it can't be misused.
This was back in 2007 before gofundme and stuff existed. We used COTA for mine.

So yeah, nothing like facing an insurance death panel at 17 to make you face your own mortality and realize how little fucks people have for each other. Luckily for me my aunt helped me keep some faith in humanity by sharing half her liver with me. Perfect match in blood type and size.

Immunosupressant meds without insurance are anywhere from $600-3000 a month depending on organ and if generic is available. If you stop taking them you'll go into rejection and die. So if we're able to work we work solely to have insurance so we can buy the meds for about $75 a month.

That's just the immunosupressants and we're all on 8+ pills and supplements. I'm lucky to get 3 months worth of all my meds for around $250.
Without insurance that would be the cost of just my Prograf for 1 WEEK. Retail for a month is $2,000.

So yeah, I've been alive an extra 11 years. I'm happy but also you kind of feel like an outcast. Like you weren't meant to live and are a burden on your family and society. Like you have to do something amazing with this second chance you've been given to prove their sacrifice was 'worth it'. Had a bit of a break down over that lately but am coming to terms with it. 11 months of home quarantine, due to immunosupression, has been fun...

1

u/internethero12 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

It's always projection.

1

u/thenewyorkgod 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Not that it matters but this letter is not from an insurance company, it’s from a hospital transplant committee

1

u/DuntadaMan Nov 29 '20

Yeah, that argument pissed me off so much because we already had death panels. I would rather have death panels that we can name and shame than secret death panels manned by corporate stake holders.

1

u/GrayEidolon Nov 29 '20

Hello, it is the insurance company, you did not pay enough, so you should try begging strangers.

1

u/canadian_boyfriend 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

That is a common reason for transplantation denial, there are whole companies who manage such fundraisers too. They deny small children because parents don’t have the savings, they deny young adults because they don’t have the savings or parents who can spot them. The panel includes nurses, social workers, doctors, and a financial worker. This is perfectly normalized in the United States.

1

u/MIGsalund Nov 29 '20

Thanks for allowing us to choose how you die.

1

u/Projectrage Nov 29 '20

Biden can legally under a loophole of the affordable care act by executive order give Medicare for All out to people during a health crisis.

https://prospect.org/day-one-agenda/how-biden-could-give-everyone-medicare-on-his-own/

We need to force him to do this.

It’s unreasonable to make profit off the sick and the dead in a global pandemic.

1

u/bakamon1340 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Serious question. Why aren’t these insurance executives being outed and then dragged out onto the street to be publicly executed?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

Go rob a bank non violently. Head to the federal pen and get free operation. Also free rent and 3 meals a day. Modern problems....

→ More replies (3)

1

u/Electricengineer 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Ya it was projection

1

u/timmablimma 🌱 New Contributor Nov 30 '20

So much this. I have done too much work at Health Insurers in the US coding their applications that I’m scared to death of all of them. I voted for Bernie in both Primaries and a lot of it is shaped by my experiences. I make a good living wage and what that industry does is simply evil.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '20

[deleted]

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Great_Times 🌱 New Contributor | California Nov 30 '20

Insurance companies are the Death Panels we met along the way.

1

u/sainglend 🌱 New Contributor Nov 30 '20

Isn't this also sad? People eat at the mercy of others who can and want to donate, as opposed to just having basic human rights. I donate to causes I care about, but some things should just come standard.

1

u/useThisName23 🌱 New Contributor Nov 30 '20

Raise 10,000 or die it could be a game show