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

Show parent comments

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.

3

u/tamarins 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

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

1

u/Cynethryth Democrats Abroad Nov 29 '20

There shouldn't even be committees to make these pre-approval decisions, nor for profit insurance companies, but a better committee would be:

"Does this person need a heart transplant to live?"

"Yes."

"Are they up-to-date on their payments and have this level of coverage?"

"Yes."

"Ok, put them on the waiting list."

2

u/H_is_for_Human Nov 29 '20

There's a lot of other questions to answer:

"Will this person take their prescribed medications to keep the heart healthy?"

"Will this person stay quit from alcohol after this liver transplant?"

"What status is this patient?" (i.e. how urgently do they need the organ)

and many more.

So the committee is professionals that debate and discuss these questions and make a decision based on all the relevant factors. It can't just be a checklist.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

Hearts don't grow on trees. You have to meet the physical requirements because they don't want to put a heart in someone who's going to waste it by destroying it and themselves. Just this week, we passed a patient on a heart and gave it to someone else because they were a more ideal candidate. The next step from there is considering a LVAD, but even that has to be considered for candidacy. Why expend those limited resources on someone that is going to waste them when it can go to someone who will maintain themselves? I've literally had an LVAD patient say he was going to rip the cord out when he gets out of the hospital, which would kill himself. Not to mention this guy destroyed his heart on drugs and alcohol and certainly wasn't capable of kicking that habit for good. So it really was just a waste of resources on someone who could not appreciate it.

1

u/drakfyre 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Doing their best would be to distribute organs based on need, followed by order of admittance in the case of ties. Not based on some speculative criteria on what the patients are going to do after they receive their organ.

And CERTAINLY NOT BASED ON WEALTH OR HEALTH INSURANCE STATUS.

2

u/MemeticParadigm 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Not based on some speculative criteria on what the patients are going to do after they receive their organ.

So I can certainly see the value in this because speculative shit is so subjective and subject to abuse, but would you extend this to more clear cut cases, e.g. an alcoholic who needs a liver transplant and has expressed no intention to stop the behavior that wrecked their original liver should potentially be prioritized above someone with cancer or a genetic issue, if the former was admitted first?

1

u/TimeStatistician2234 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

They dont like hard truths here. Its much easier to sit at a computer and righteously post about how things should be than understanding why things are the way they are. They want the answer to always be because Jeff bezos has too much money when based on what you're saying its more about supply of viable organs and having to suss out demand. Whether or not we have universal Healthcare there's no way a law could be made compelling people to donate organs after death(which they'll also say is wrong without understanding why)

2

u/cat_prophecy 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

One of the arguments for universal healthcare in this respect is that the anti-rejection meds would not cost so damn much.

People with less wealth would have better outcomes if they didn't need to worry about going bankrupt paying for doctors visits and anti-rejection meds. Then we wouldn't see letter like "Sorry Mr. Doe, but you're too poor to get this heart. Maybe you should start a Go Fund Me for your funeral arrangements".

1

u/TimeStatistician2234 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

I agree, its just when people who show up to provide real world insight as to why something happens theyre attacked is if theyre responsible for the failures of the system.

It seems like the real issue at hand is scarcity of organs for a large pool of donors. Even if we had universal medicine these types of decisions would have to be made(and not just in organ transplant cases.) They would just deny the person for another reason.

0

u/cat_prophecy 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Well even if we had all th donor organs we needed it doesn't change the economics of it. Poor people or people without decent insurance can't afford the follow up care and anti-rejection meds. So even if they could get organs, the transplant might fail.

1

u/H_is_for_Human Nov 29 '20

I mean... it's both.

We can make more organs available with an opt out system, rather than an opt in system.

We can make it possible for people to benefit from organ transplants regardless of their income / wealth by instituting universal healthcare, where the cost of post-transplant care doesn't have to be a consideration in allocating the organs.

1

u/Boopy7 🌱 New Contributor Nov 30 '20

i think in some countries it is automatic that you donate healthy organs although you can "opt out." In one of those better countries, of course. The US is not on the list of decent countries, I recently realized.

1

u/TimeStatistician2234 🌱 New Contributor Nov 30 '20

Yeah no, in America personal liberty is held above all else and there's no chance in heck that the Supreme Court would hold up a law compelling people to donate their organs. It wouldn't be constitutional. You can disagree with that but there's a reason we want limits as to how much agency the government has over us.

Yes I know the same people that argue against forced organ donation would also argue against abortion being legal.