Teens dies after insurance company denies payment

C

Cypress

Well-known member
Look, I know even in a single payer universal plan, not every procedure is going to be paid for. Medical facts have to be balanced against the efficacy of treatment. And I'm not saying that I know for sure that profit is a motive in this particular case.

But, I have a major problem with profit being in any way, a consideration in whether a patient's treatment gets paid for. It should be completely based on medical facts and medical science. Profit should play no role in determining who dies and who lives.


Teen dies after transplant funds nixed

Fri Dec 21, 7:23 AM ET

GLENDALE, Calif. - A 17-year old died just hours after her health insurance company reversed its decision not to pay for a liver transplant that doctors said the girl needed.

Nataline Sarkisyan died Thursday night at about 6 p.m. at University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center. She had been in a vegetative state for weeks, said her mother, Hilda.

"She passed away, and the insurance (company) is responsible for this," she said.

Nataline had been battling leukemia and received a bone marrow transplant from her brother. She developed a complication, however, that caused her liver to fail.

Doctors at UCLA determined she needed a transplant and sent a letter to CIGNA Healthcare on Dec. 11. The Philadelphia-based health insurance company denied payment for the transplant.

On Thursday, about 150 teenagers and nurses protested outside CIGNA's office in Glendale. As the protesters rallied, the company reversed its decision and said it would approve the transplant.

Despite the reversal, CIGNA said in an e-mail statement before she died that there was a lack of medical evidence showing the procedure would work in Nataline's case.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071221..._transplant;_ylt=AhbqyQQfRwhiEM9Jf5k29CDVJRIF
Click to expand...
 
Why did they deny her? You assume it is profit, yet many other profitable insurers fund translants all the time. Likely it was some employee made a fuckup and thought it shouldn't be approved.

If you really want to save a lot of lives with transplants than legalize organ selling again that was banned by worrying politicians in the 80's despite no real problem. Far more people die on waiting lists for organs that never come, whether authorized by insurance companies or not. Legalizing the sale of organs would mean more people would come forward to donate and more people in their wills with relatives to leave more to would allow their family members to sell their organs.

Call your rep and urge them to legalize organ selling again. No more black market where only the rich can afford it by going to 3rd world countries. :)
 
Liberano said:
Why did they deny her? You assume it is profit, yet many other profitable insurers fund translants all the time. Likely it was some employee made a fuckup and thought it shouldn't be approved.

If you really want to save a lot of lives with transplants than legalize organ selling again that was banned by worrying politicians in the 80's despite no real problem. Far more people die on waiting lists for organs that never come, whether authorized by insurance companies or not. Legalizing the sale of organs would mean more people would come forward to donate and more people in their wills with relatives to leave more to would allow their family members to sell their organs.

Call your rep and urge them to legalize organ selling again. No more black market where only the rich can afford it by going to 3rd world countries. :)
Click to expand...

The free market is a good thing in many situations unless compassion and caring become necessary, at that point business fails miserably.

The company that can best get away with paying less out to sick people will put the others out of business.
 
"Legalizing the sale of organs would mean more people would come forward to donate and more people"

legalizing the sale of would cause more donations of ?
 
Legalizing the sale of organs would ensure that poor people would be missing organs. The market is not a resolution for all things.

I would sell myself into slavery if it would ensure my family's future. Does that mean that slavery should be legal?
 
we have a massive prob in healthcare, blaming profits is juvenille at best and at it's roots it's really just partisan hackmanship at it's worst.
The leftist of left politicians wouldn't dare promise all needed transplants would be funded that's comical Cypress. thanks
 
Liberano said:
Why did they deny her? You assume it is profit, yet many other profitable insurers fund translants all the time. Likely it was some employee made a fuckup and thought it shouldn't be approved.

If you really want to save a lot of lives with transplants than legalize organ selling again that was banned by worrying politicians in the 80's despite no real problem. Far more people die on waiting lists for organs that never come, whether authorized by insurance companies or not. Legalizing the sale of organs would mean more people would come forward to donate and more people in their wills with relatives to leave more to would allow their family members to sell their organs.

Call your rep and urge them to legalize organ selling again. No more black market where only the rich can afford it by going to 3rd world countries. :)
Click to expand...


If you really want to save a lot of lives with transplants than legalize organ selling again that was banned by worrying politicians in the 80's


this is stupid.
 
Organ selling was only outlawed in the 80's, does anyone recall many poor people missing organs before that? No.

Organ selling would help both the poor by allowing them to sell that 2nd kidney they don't need for thousands of dollars and it would save lives with people waiting.

Right now all we have is a black market where Joe Rich can go to a 3rd world country and pay tens of thousands to save their lives. If we legalize it here, it's no longer a black market and many more can afford to have their life saved.
 
Damocles said:
And legalizing slavery would cause more slaves to be available. Again. What is your point?
Click to expand...

You have no right over the decisions of the lives of others, but you DO have the right over decisions on your own body. The organ is yours, the slave could never be.
 
So your point is we have a moral obligation to go against the morality of most americans and legalize something becuse some people go elsewhere to do it?

Some people who live in Africa own slaves. We better start legalizing it, because some people go there and do that too. Some places you can still buy poached elephant tusks, better legalize that one too!
 
Damocles said:
So your point is we have a moral obligation to go against the morality of most americans and legalize something becuse some people go elsewhere to do it?
Click to expand...
The morality that counts in this case is the individual who needs an organ to live and the seller who wants money to better his life. Why should outside morality affect their free decision, they are not harming anyone. Let them help each other in freedom and peace.
 
Umm when did organ transplants begin Dano ?
there could be a reason for that.

Kinda like saying it was not illegal to drive while talking on an iPhone before this year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top