Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Still More Doctors Amazed to Learn Patient in Persistent Vegetative State . . . Wasn

Still More Doctors Amazed to Learn Patient in Persistent Vegetative State . . . Wasn’t

Posted using ShareThis


Ron said...

What is your point here? Every person with vital signs should be preserved? A noble thought but it bumps up against many other ones. For example, how much should be spent. What if they have no or run out of insurance. Will you help foot the bill. Do their families get to make the decision or is that the domain of government? I'm betting your nobility has limits?

The Game said...

just thought it was interesting...didn't think that far into it..
However what u are saying is what is going to happen all the time when we have socialized medicine..someone will have to determine which things get done and which do not

Ron said...

That is what the insurance companies do now. At least with government we have the illusion of a little control over the matter. With Insurance companies we have none not even an illusion of control, except regulation which in many peoples world is a no no.

Marshall Art said...

Nonsense Ron. Gov't "illusion" is no alternative. If the results are the same, the harm is the same.

Should an insurance company go broke? Can it have no limitations without being demonized? Perhaps with fewer foolish regulations and insurance company wouldn't be footing the bill for so many non-catastrophic illnesses and injuries and they could go much further in covering the catastrophic, which is what they were designed to do in the first place. People have come to believe that every hangnail should be covered and as a result, insurance companies are needlessly burdened. So even the insured must take some blame for the high costs of health care.

And by the way, Ron, the article shows that doctors aren't gods and that perhaps those considered not worth it deserve a little more consideration. But hey, you're right. It's only human life. Why sweat it?

Jim said...

"Should an insurance company go broke?" Can you name one that has?

You seem to believe that insurance companies collect premiums only for catastrophic illness or injuries, yet pay out for "hang nails". And therefore they're going broke?

Is that correct?

That may be your insurance model, but it is not the current industry insurance model.

I pay premiums based on actuarial tables for medical services. Everything medical is covered subject to co-pays and annual deductibles. I take my son to the doctor if he has a sore throat for more than a day or so because he may have Strep. I pay a co-pay, but I don't fill out any forms.

Do you think my insurance company is losing money on me because Strep throat is not a catastrophic illness?

I don't think so, Tim.

Insurance companies on average have a 17% profit margin. I have nothing at all against profit, but I think there is room in this margin to provide coverage where needed rather than deny coverage as a matter of practice.

And I'm fine with insurance companies offering "catastrophic only" coverage as long as they do in fact cover instead of deny.

Marshall Art said...

"Do you think my insurance company is losing money on me because Strep throat is not a catastrophic illness?"

Not as it's set up now. But we're talking about the cost of health care, aren't we? Insurance costs are just a part of whole cost of health care. It dosesn't stand on it's own as the only area in need of reform. Other costs rise for other reasons.

But insurance would cost less if it didn't have to cover so much that frankly, it doesn't need to. Is the health of your son so insignificant that you wouldn't provide for the more routine and mundane medical needs? Is it so insignificant that you won't be more vigilant in regulating his lifestyle so as to protect him against the contraction of illness or the against the liklihood of injury? The point is that there is much that does not require insurance coverage that people should attend to more directly. When you put it together with other areas of concern (regarding costs), costs go down. In this area, it goes down because claims for less serious needs go down. Income to the insurer due to premiums can be used more for catastrophic issues.

If you're going to argue about how to fix health care, you can't continue to bring up the problems we're trying to fix and use that to support your position. It's circular. You must think of how things might work under one idea as opposed to another idea.

Anonymous said...

If someone pulls the plug it is based on the patients wishes, power of attorney or next of kin. Nurses, Doctors, the Goverment (unless included by family to fight)do not make these decisions. This patient is a RARE case. People want quick fixes for health care but won't take initatives on their own.This is why it is important to tell someone what YOU want done. HC is organized chaos that provides a service. The goal is to keep people alive at all costs unless they say otherwise.