How do Republicans respond to stories like Stacey Lihn's?

Here is her story. In summary, her baby daughter has a heart defect that required multiple surgeries, and at 6 months old was already halfway to her lifetime insurance cap. The ACA got rid of these lifetime caps.

So the ACA saved her family- without it, they would undoubtedly have gone hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more, into debt to keep their daughter alive.

How do Republicans respond to this situation, and to families with similar stories? If the ACA saved their families, then how do Republicans respond to the charge that repealing the ACA would destroy those families?

Not an official spokesman so I can’t answer you.

But I do have a question for you:

How much should a private insurance company (or, even tax payers for that fact) spend to keep one person alive?

One million?
Ten million?
One billion?
One trillion?
Ten trillion?
I want you to tell me how much would be too much to keep one person alive.
And who get’s to determine what that amount is? You? Why you and not the people actually writing the checks?

And after the amount you cite is surpassed, what are you going to say when the funds are cut off?

Two words: rugged individualism.

That’s where the Death Panels cone in. Don’t feer progress.

How much do we spend at end of life or just trying to prolong life for a few more months? Doesn’t it make more sense to spend freely on a child than it does on her elderly grandmother?

Three words: spaghetti dinner fundraisers.

The thing with ACA and the idea that the Republicans can just repeal it is that there have to be hundreds of stories that are just as compelling, with more coming every day.

While there is no upper limit to “what if” questions like this, I think there is a very real ceiling on how much cutting and slicing-up the human heart can take. Likewise, doesn’t it make sense that after trying this operation and that procedure, doctors and surgeons would pretty quickly arrive at a conclusion such as “I’m afraid there’s nothing else we can do”?

I checked the linked story and the figures weren’t given on the lifetime cap, nor on how much the various operations have thus far cost the family. What kind of surgeries and how many would be needed to even begin to approach the one million and then the one billion mark?

Along the lines of my previous post, there is only so much slicing into grandma before you kill her with surgery. That significantly limits how much you can “waste” on keeping her alive. So I think these kinds of questions, while they might be interesting hypotheticals, don’t really need to be answered.

My son has the same heart defect as Stacey Lihn’s daughter so I am very familiar with the medical procedures and also insurance issues. The most common amount for a lifetime cap was $1 million. Sometimes it was $500,000. My son, like Stacey Lihn’s daughter, has undergone two of the three open heart surgeries he will need to survive, and in our case, each one cost our insurance company about $300,000. The overall cost can vary dramatically depending on what complications arise. He has also required several other procedures requiring overnight hospital stays, and those cost at least $30,000. My son has been relatively fortunate in that he has had no major complications associated with his surgeries. I know some kids with the same disorder who have spent as long as 2 years as an inpatient, most of that time in intensive care. He also takes several very expensive medications every day.

Having a severe congenital heart defect is probably one of the most expensive (if not THE most expensive) medical conditions you can have. But the thing is that we have been told that my son, having survived the first two surgeries, has an excellent chance of surviving to adulthood, living a pretty normal life, and in a sense, giving something back to society in exchange for the expenditures being made now on his behalf.

See, I’d have more respect for Republicans/conservatives/libertarians if only they acknowledged certain truths about their beliefs. Bricker was willing to stand up and say “yes, it’s okay for people to die of treatable medical conditions because they can’t afford the bills.” If politicians did that, and explained why it’s better for us as a society to let that happen, I could at least accept and argue against an honest rationale.

I’ve seen a few Republicans when pressed say that when they “repeal and replace” Obamacare, they’ll restore all the “good parts” like the lifetime limit, eliminating pre-existing condition restrictions with the “replace” bit. The problem is, that the “bad parts” of Obamacare were all brought on board to cover the “good parts”.

Some of the newer biologic drugs have some amazing results… and amazing price tags upwards of $100K yearly.

For those surviving Hodgkins Lymphoma after treatment with standard therapy, a lifespan of 40 years is possible. One new biologic is targeted to some of the HL patients who fail conventional treatment.

But they are still so new we don’t know if some of those are cures or if repeated treatments will be needed. A patient might need a $100k drug regimen every year for life. That is in addition to the related hospital and doctor expenses. That adds up.

The US has somewhere around 13,000 HL patients annually. A 40 year biologic drug regimen for the 11% or so who fail conventional treatment would be about 5.72 billion. Next year there will be a new batch of 13k patients, and so it goes.

Well, they can’t claim ‘natural selection’ or ‘survival of the fittest’, can they?

It’s easy to respond. Does society have a responsibility to prevent all preventable deaths? if so, every society fails because no society can yet afford such a thing.

It’s a good thing our ancestors weren’t so selfish as to spend our money trying to perfect their societies and eliminate all want.

Yes, thank God they just let all those sick poor people die rather than “spending our money”. It’s what Jesus would have wanted.

Got it. In your scenario, that family is destroyed- either by debt, or the death of their baby daughter.

Our ancestors should have destroyed our futures to make their present a little better?

And what is your answer to someone who dies because the government won’t pay for their treatment? Every single country in the world has deaths that could have been prevented with better access to health care. THe premise of this thread is false, since universal health care does not guarantee that everyone in her situation is saved.

Your premise seems to be that since we can’t save everyone we shouldn’t bother trying to save more.

Given the hideous amount of inefficiency in the American healthcare system, one could well argue that you could save more and spend less per capita, as indeed many universal healthcare systems do.

No, but it provides wider access to healthcare options, and usually at lower cost than the current American system. Why are Republicans, in a general sense, always against this?