My post did not imply that. What it implied is that conservatives tend to reject government programs to help. Except for a single sentence about “zero problem,” your response focused solely on individual compassion, supporting my thesis.
ETA: Amend your remarks if you wish. But please be aware that you answered the question I did not ask and did not answer the question I asked.
I’ve heard of JWs who had every conceivable transplant; the doctors used cell savers (the patient’s own blood is sucked up, filtered, and re-infused) and other methods to conserve blood, which is done anyway but they are VERY careful when operating on them.
I used to work at a hospital that did open heart surgery, and our surgeon would perform procedures on JWs as long as they were fully informed of the potential risks.
Are you sure? I don’t think that would completely exclude you.
It probably depends on the center and other factors. I Googled “marijuana use organ transplants” and got this link.
I’d definitely rather see an organ go to someone who smoked weed than the person I saw on rotations who had a transplant (can’t remember what) and rejected his organ because he deliberately threw up all his pills. :eek: :mad:
Have you, or any member of your family, been in the military? Disabled American Veterans or your local VFW post may be able to help you if the copays present a hardship for you.
I’d hate to question someone quoted for their opinion in a Murdoch publication but the WHO says UK men live 3 years longer than their US counterparts. UK spend on healthcare vs. US in that relevant year was 9.3% vs. 17.9%
Working Americans have been the victims of the longest, biggest scam in the industrialised world. IMO, Mr Murdoch.
Situations vary. I have a client right now who has had a kidney transplant, and he is on SSI Disability. Probably not just because of the kidney transplant, but because of a whole host of medical issues he has, some related to the kidney problems, some not. He gets Medicaid, which covers the anti-rejection meds and all the other care he needs. I think in his entire life, he’s always worked at least some when he was physically able, but none of his jobs have ever included medical insurance.
The biblical quote is from II Thessalonians 3:10 and variations on it were used by socialists including Lenin.
The Congressman in question was US Rep Stephen Fincher (R-TN) who made the comment in the context of a May 2013 debate on the Farm Bill in the House Agriculture Committee. Fincher’s comment was seen as particularly troublesome considering he is one of the largest recipients of federal farm subsidies in Congress.
It’s now possible to transplant a kidney from a non-HLA matched donor and have the recipient off anti-rejection drugs for life within six months. The trick is to have a simultaneous bone marrow stem cell transplant from the same donor. This creates a chimeric population of immune stem cells and allows tolerance of the foreign tissue. The procedure is currently only used in clinical trials but could potentially render much of this discussion obsolete.
Technically, Jesus was a communist; Matthew 20:1–16 The Parable of the Labourers in The Vineyard - everyone gets the same pay, no matter how little or how long they work. To each according to his need.
Sorry, I forgot to mention I meant in Canada. Here you pay for any prescriptions outside of the hospital, but if you cannot afford them, there are means-test prescription plans. So “ability to afford drugs” is not in the qualification criteria for the list.
OK, I would not suggest a transplant costs the same as a tonsillectomy - but when the cost of an operation does not include $100 aspirin and $10 tongue depressors and all the other baggage of the US system, the cost is not extraordinary to possibly save someone’s life.
A surgeon with a $300,000 income would command an hourly rate around $150, give or take. (2000 work hours in a year). 3 surgeons, 10 hours, $4500. Nurses, supplies, other tasks, prep, obtaining and transporting the organ, etc. - considering several years ago a Polish couple was billed close to $20,000 when the wife when into labour here… I would be surprised if the total bill for a transplant operation, realistically in honest Canadian costs, exceeded $100,000. There’s probably a much higher cost for the treatment of the chronic patient in the years leading up to the transplant. Plus, I imagine heart surgery and hip replacements, which are also a matter of routine and available to everyone (if you can stand the wait for a hip replacement) are also relatively expensive procedures too.
The question is not “is a transplant cheap?” the question is “how much more so that other, fairly complex and involved operations that happen routinely?”
I had a very, very sick woman come in with visitor status from another country. She needed a bone marrow transplant. Her brother (from Kenya, I believe) brought her into the office to apply for public assistance benefits. The only thing she would potentially have qualified for under eligibility rules back then (nearly 10 years ago) was a program called EMA (emergency medical assistance). I asked the brother to obtain medical records from her physician in Kenya, attesting to the need for immediate medical care. He faxed over many narrative pages, stating that, oh yes, she was one sick woman. Part of that narrative included discussions about having a bone marrow transplant done in the US, where her brother was a citizen. My heart just sank. I had to deny her coverage. To this day, I wonder what happened to her. She was very young.
With regard to the OP, don’t forget what happened in Arizona a couple of years ago.
In short, the state was low on money and decided Medicaid would no longer cover certain transplants. Patients started dying and they were forced to reverse the decision and cover them again. These were people with Medicaid which means they had insurance they thought would cover them. There’s nothing to stop this from happening again.
The thing is, you see, when the NHS screws up in some way or other, it gets reported in our media, and, generally speaking, efforts are made to fix it. Stories like this are actually evidence that people in Britain care about their healthcare system, have some voice in how it is run, and, when it has problems, regard them as both fixable and worth fixing. This is very different from how things are in America.
Broomstick:
Uninsured? As if! I have health insurance, and a kidney transplant (for which I was evaluated recently) is well beyond my means to afford the continued meds and co-pays and all that.
Full-scale, single-payer national health care can’t come soon enough for me.
Yep, thus 9.3% of GDP covers the entire population, and men living 3 years longer than their US counterparts: efficiency is implicit in the system as is, increasingly, prevention and early diagnosis over cure.
This is the major plus of the Canadian system. Doctors who do not take part in the provincial plans are not reimbursed, neither are their patients. Since health care is government-paid, nobody that I am aware of has insurance of benefits that substitute for provincial health plans. As a result, there are virtually no doctors doing regular medicine who are not in the system - so it’s the same plan for everyone and everyone watches it like a hawk. People may complain taxes are too high, occasionally someone claims “for profit” health institutes could do things better, but a politician that suggests they cut the coverage or charge money for health care is guaranteed a one-way trip to the history books.
As a reult, this is everyone’s health care. If there is favouritism, waste, or other shortcomings in the system anywhere, it makes the news. Organ transplants, like hip replacements, are done as patients need them. If organs were being discarded for cost reasons, or shipped south to the USA (Why? Nobody here makes a profit off that) someone in the system would disclose it and raise hell because it could be their family suffering next time.
From what I’ve read in the news, Canada suffers from the same problem as the USA and other Western countries - the limiting factor is the supply of usable organs.
:mad:
That makes as much sense as TennCare and Illinois Public Aid’s decisions in recent years to pay for FOUR prescriptions per person per month. That’s it - 4 prescriptions. That doesn’t affect most people, who are healthy, but for a person who’s had an organ transplant, is diabetic, or has heart disease or any number of other diseases that require multiple medications? They’re not going to be able to buy their meds anyway, which is why they’re eligible for Medicaid, and it could be a death sentence.
The earliest reference I’ve seen to nationalized health care was a statement made by FDR in 1932, and I don’t see the issue being resolved 80 years from now either.
Nava and others have identified the that the verse is 2 Thessalonians 3:10, but also the context is that Paul isn’t talking about poor people or lazy people. Maybe I’m misremembering/misinterpreting things, but the church of Thessalonica was very concerned about Christ’s return. Some people thought it was imminent, and if Christ is coming back soon, what’s the point of doing any work? So Paul is telling them don’t be stupid, if you can work, you need to work, don’t just sit around waiting for Christ to come back.
It’s obvious from the context that it’s not saying that you shouldn’t get food if you don’t work; it’s not a good justification for cutting food stamps or Medicare.
You’d be astonished how much work, time, effort and money goes into every pill in a hospital.
One little aspirin seems like nothing- but it requires a dozen people to take action, checking and cross checking each other, writing, reading, scanning orders.
Med storage and delivery is secure, and expensive. Every pill is separately packaged for safety.
It’s a huge undertaking to get you a pill in a hospital. The cost, as broken out in billing, isn’t that far out of line.
All this of course, is to SAVE money and lives.
Medication errors are common, expensive, and often tragic.
I think really what it is - like most institutions, there’s a lot of overhead. Someone has to pay for the admissions department, billing, laundry, cleaning staff, computers, air conditioning maintenance, legal retainer, yada yada yada. They can’t simply have a bill - “Health services, $1000, Overhead $5,000” so they are forced to add that extra as a part of every item they can individually bill.
Also, from what little I know of the US system, you as a paying customer are making up for the money they lose on people they have to treat but who can’t pay.