THIS is the status quo "some" are desperate to protect ~  ~ arbitrary decisions that kill people ~ in favor of the almighty profit ~ Sooz

I have for years maintained that universal healthcare is a right, as is the right to higher education...indeed, I personally feel that if there are any restrictions, they should be applied to the "old" and not the young...like, a $100,000 heart surgery for 80 yr. old Grandma?  Come on now...there are just so many healthcare dollars in the world, and I do believe the old should make room for the young...several hundred thousand dollars are spent every year on open heart surgeries for Seniors. Ridiculous. That said, my question is, WHY DOES THE TREATMENT COST SO MUCH??  This would seem to be a case where the "kind"
pharmaceuticals need to show their gratitude for all the patronage and dough they make elsewhere and help this child with the treatment on an "ability to pay" type thing, and the pharmaceutical could also deal with the insurance and give them a "sweetheart" deal....again done all the time...

Would a government-run health insurance program cover expenses for drugs and treatments not approved by the FDA?  What's the current policy for Medicare and Medicaid coverage of such items?

So, you'd rather just let the seniors die?  Even though those same seniors paid into a universal healthcare system all their lives?  That's colder than the status quo if you ask me.  BTW... just so you know... some of the members here are Canadians and we have true UNIVERSAL healthcare that INCLUDES seniors.  Also... just so you know... I AM one of those seniors you think should just move out of your way - and I have had two heart attacks along with being diagnosed as diabetic.  According to you, I should just fade away and not bother your "universal" healthcare so you can get your tummy tuck or nose job?  Well, I'll be sure to tell my senior buddy who died last year that he did it your way and he should be proud to have allowed you the opportunity to get a butt lift.

You can keep that "system".

  

[quote="gopqed"] [quote]gop, from the op: " ... in April 2008, the insurer approved cheaper treatment for Van Nocker that was also “experimental, ...â€

In Pennsylvania, where this young man lives, you would apparently be wrong:

http://www.gatewayhealthp...caid/pa/medcoverage.aspx

Do they make exceptions?  I don't know.  But that would be the same kind of arbitrary decision, whether it's by a government plan or a private plan.  Unfortunately, without coverage decisions, there is absolutely no control over healthcare costs.

Sooz... I have heard that 80 year old grannies may not get a knee or hip replacement because the artifical joint will outlast them by a decade but that doesn't mean they're going to be denied treatment all together.  But read this line again:



That sounds to me like the poster seems to think "old" people are a burden and they should just get out of the way.  There'd be a riot in the streets if that were to happen in this country. As for Danny boy going to the US, although it hasn't been revealed just why he went (it may not have been "elective") - there are a lot of Canadians who are not too happy with his decision to go outside of the country to get surgery he could have had here. BUT, 1) we do recognize it was his right to do so and 2) it demonstrated quite clearly that the Canadian system doesn't have two levels of treatment - ie. one for the rich and one for the rest.  All persons are treated equally.  So Danny would have had to wait (for an angioplasty it would have been a matter of a couple weeks if it is elective) just like anyone else.

  

My point, though, is that you're calling for a government-run plan when the existing government-run plan guidelines in the state in which the boy lives state that the treatment would not be covered.  There's no guarantee that the outcome would be any different for this boy under such a plan.  A government-run plan is not a fix for this kind of situation.

Point taken ~ I agree there are NO guarantees ~ but it doesn't budge me from believing deeply that we need a public option ~ a for-profit company is VERY likely to make VERY different decisions than a not-for-profit government plan ~

Sooz

Sooz,

I regret to inform I read Cannalee's post with the same feeling of indignation expressed by Sid.  



If we are to consider the matter by looking at the limited supply of money available as an indicator of priority, one might as well say something as callous as:


How does it sound when read that way?  Brutal?  Callous?  Repugnant?  Disgusting?  Inhuman? 

There is merit to "triaging" medical care, which is what my understanding is of the Canadian system.    I believe I understand where Cannallee is coming from, but her premise is too heavily weighted in favor of the young, and the unfortunate choice of words is beyond inhumane, inconsiderate, and insulting to any adult, much less any elderly person. 

In addition, there are great numbers of "private sector" institutions and groups that offer health care services, or help with treatment for many special needs children.  There are few to none for seniors.    The Shriners are one such group dedicating their efforts to sick children.  There are innumerable groups for research and treatment for infants and children born with illnesses, physical or mental defects.   Where there is a child, there are usually one or more adults around to provide some care for them.  There are usually some people available to "fight" for the life of a child.

The elderly are often alone in the world, while becoming less able to protect themselves or care for themselves.  They need to be as physically strong as possible because they MUST take care of themselves until they can mercifully die of natural causes, or by suicide.  It's cheaper than a nursing home.   The elderly have people who think they should just push a switch and drop dead so they won't be "tax-takers."  Never mind all of the taxes those elderly people paid while they worked. 

I shouldn't mix in, I know.  It's neither here nor there.  I, too, am one of the elderly, and this is not the first time that I've been told, on line, that the world would be better off if I just conveniently dropped dead and stopped using up so much of our precious nation's resources.  It's sounding better to me every f-ing day I remain alive in the US.    Too bad my generation didn't feel that way.  We could have maybe managed to prevent Ronald Reagan's long term care.  I mean, after all......

jd

I also had much the same reaction as Sid to Cannalee's post.  It seemed to be an endorsement of the infamous "death panels."

It's always a tough call as to using ( paying for) experimental treatment.  We all want to go to any lengths to save a loved one, and especially a child.  Sometimes, if a treatment shows real promise, thye will "give it away"  or the FDA will recommend paying if it is very promising so as not to deny care and to get better information.  Many times drugs being studied are suddenly offered to the placebo or control group because they are so effective during the trial.  Public health care will not solve this dilemma- it will continue no matter what kind of health care payment plan is adopted.

Ahem..... not medically necessary?



Talk about "disconnected"! These people need to be hit with a few bricks!