Should this little girl be medically covered?

[coyotes_geek]

The premise of placing a monetary value on something that cannot be evalutated monetarily is fatally flawed. We have to understand and accept that somethings are evaluated with different criteria than a $ sign.


Edit: And again, CC, you are focusing on the exception rather than the majority population.

Just to play devils advocate with you, don't courts put monetary values on life fairly regularly? Don't individuals put monetary values on their own lives when deciding how much life insurance to carry? I get the inherent desire to say that life is priceless, but there seem to be plenty of examples where we do just that.

Again, just playing devils advocate here.

[Blake]

It's grim to think that allowing such policies would ultimately spell a death sentence for this little girl, but can we afford to keep everyone alive? I'd hate to see good insurance companies go down the tubes because they happen to end up covering these rare cases where a person has a symptom that costs roughly a million a year to cover.

lol everyone. We should just go Logans Run to solve the problem of health care costs.

stupid article.

[TeyshaBlue]

Just to play devils advocate with you, don't courts put monetary values on life fairly regularly? Don't individuals put monetary values on their own lives when deciding how much life insurance to carry? I get the inherent desire to say that life is priceless, but there seem to be plenty of examples where we do just that.

Again, just playing devils advocate here.

Yes, and Yes. In the former, it's usually in response to a legal challenge...lawsuit for unlawful death, negligence, etc as a compensatory action. Not, as in insurance, a preventative. In the latter, individuals deciding how much life insurance to carry, that is a choice that the individual is allowed to make.
In the case of the OP, there is no choice allowed.

I understand your point, and it's a good one in establishing prior monetization of life in the form of compensatory claims. But, the situation in the OP is not about compensation. It's about prevention and survival.




Edit: After thinking about this a bit longer, I ignored the tort aspect of court awards. Those are definately a combo of punitve/compensatory actions. You have a stronger point than I initially thought.

[Blake]

Just to play devils advocate with you, don't courts put monetary values on life fairly regularly? Don't individuals put monetary values on their own lives when deciding how much life insurance to carry? I get the inherent desire to say that life is priceless, but there seem to be plenty of examples where we do just that.

Again, just playing devils advocate here.

Bit of difference in deciding how much a beneficiary should receive after death than deciding how much it's worth to keep someone alive.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol everyone. We should just go Logans Run to solve the problem of health care costs.

stupid article.

Sometimes I envy the Carousel. I could use the time off.

[TeyshaBlue]

you asked for an opinion...I'm just throwing some out...I'm not saying that I have all the answers...

So do we decide based on a points system?

Say...

You start at birth with 100 points...you lose a point every year
If you are overweight you lose X points
If you smoke or drink you lose Y points
If you are on a do ented regular exercise program add Z points
etc.

Then say...a bypass operation requires 35 points. If you are 40 years old and exercise, no problem. If you are 70 years old and smoke and drink and are overweight you are just out of luck.

I respect your opinion, CC. It's certainly not a minority opinion at this point in time.
It's issues like this that make parsing/rationing/delivering healthcare such a colossal pain in the ass.

[Blake]

Sometimes I envy the Carousel. I could use the time off.

? ?

[coyotes_geek]

Yes, and Yes. In the former, it's usually in response to a legal challenge...lawsuit for unlawful death, negligence, etc as a compensatory action. Not, as in insurance, a preventative. In the latter, individuals deciding how much life insurance to carry, that is a choice that the individual is allowed to make.
In the case of the OP, there is no choice allowed.

I understand your point, and it's a good one in establishing prior monetization of life in the form of compensatory claims. But, the situation in the OP is not about compensation. It's about prevention and survival.




Edit: After thinking about this a bit longer, I ignored the tort aspect of court awards. Those are definately a combo of punitve/compensatory actions. You have a stronger point than I initially thought.

Bit of difference in deciding how much a beneficiary should receive after death than deciding how much it's worth to keep someone alive.

Fair points. I'll take a different tact. Say instead of talking about a 5 year old girl who needs $1M/yr in medical care we're talking about a 65 year old woman needing the same treatment. Still okay to focus solely on keeping that woman alive and not worry about how much it costs?

[TeyshaBlue]

Fair points. I'll take a different tact. Say instead of talking about a 5 year old girl who needs $1M/yr in medical care we're talking about a 65 year old woman needing the same treatment. Still okay to focus solely on keeping that woman alive and not worry about how much it costs?

Yes. Still okay and (kill me nao!) morally justified.

[boutons_deux]

We saw how the Repugs, in 100% perfectly bad faith, starting screaming "death panels" about the ACA section that provided funds for EOL counseling.

The Repugs would act similarly in this thread's topic, to defend the $1M/year, because that $1M goes to docs, hospitals, BigPharma. The insurance companies will raise their premiums w/o limit (nobody can stop them). Human-Americans held hostage by yet another predatory, avaricious vampire squid.

[coyotes_geek]

Yes. Still okay and (kill me nao!) morally justified.

Okay, fine. Now she's 85 years old and wears a hoodie. Still worth it?

[TeyshaBlue]

We saw how the Repugs, in 100% perfectly bad faith, starting screaming "death panels" about the ACA section that provided funds for EOL counseling.

The Repugs would act similarly in this thread's topic, to defend the $1M/year, because that $1M goes to docs, hospitals, BigPharma. The insurance companies will raise their premiums w/o limit (nobody can stop them). Human-Americans held hostage by yet another predatory, avaricious vampire squid.

...enhanced by the ACA which parks a guaranteed 6 course dinner at the table of the insurance companies.

[TeyshaBlue]

Okay, fine. Now she's 85 years old and wears a hoodie. Still worth it?

Ok. The line must be drawn somewhere.

[CosmicCowboy]

We saw how the Repugs, in 100% perfectly bad faith, starting screaming "death panels" about the ACA section that provided funds for EOL counseling.

The Repugs would act similarly in this thread's topic, to defend the $1M/year, because that $1M goes to docs, hospitals, BigPharma. The insurance companies will raise their premiums w/o limit (nobody can stop them). Human-Americans held hostage by yet another predatory, avaricious vampire squid.

Dumbass. Democrats wrote the ing bill and didn't have the balls to go single payer.

[coyotes_geek]

Ok. The line must be drawn somewhere.

[boutons_deux]

single payer/PO would have been filibustered in the Senate, DOA.

ACA is a dog's lunch and badly underchieves because that what the corrupt corporate/political swamp throws up.

[Sec24Row7]

People die every day in other countries because they can't afford a 50 dollar shot... or because no one will give them a 10 mile truck ride to the village doctor...

There has to be a line somewhere...

[Thompson]

Just to play devils advocate with you, don't courts put monetary values on life fairly regularly? Don't individuals put monetary values on their own lives when deciding how much life insurance to carry? I get the inherent desire to say that life is priceless, but there seem to be plenty of examples where we do just that.

Practically, you have to put dollar values on peoples' lives. Air travel could be safer (more frequent inspections for cracks in the wings, etc.), but at $6,000 a ticket to cover the cost, no one flies anymore. Same thing with health insurance. It's not pleasant, but practically there have to be caps. Otherwise, the resulting cost makes the service cease to be an option for anyone, and a lot more are harmed than the rare disorder here or there.

[boutons_deux]

US Army paid $50K per dead to Bales' victims' families.

[LnGrrrR]

Well, do we value life or not?

Or only to a certain dollar amount?

I would argue we only value life to a certain dollar amount. We don't feed all the hungry, we don't shelter all the homeless, we don't immunize all the sick, etc etc.

This happens even on a lesser scale... for instance, we don't set speed limits to 5 MPH on the highways to prevent car accidents.

[LnGrrrR]

The first step towards a universal, single payor system would be for the Fed to provide catastrophic coverage (outside Medicare/Medicaid) for those who either cannot afford or qualify for coverage.

Fair enough, but how many little girls like this do you think are out there? I'm just wondering what the bill to the gov would be if they enacted a policy like this.

[LnGrrrR]

Also, this OP is predicated upon the belief that absent insurance, all care will evaporate. While that is an outcome, it is only one of many possible outcomes. Having spent a bit of time exploring alternative methods of acquiring health care, due in part to my continuing battle with disease, I can state with some confidence that there are programs available that most of us are, at best, only dimly aware of.
But, finding that assistance takes effort and it's not a cost neutral solution for many. But, it's also not always a brickwall either.

I didn't mean for it to assume that all insurance would disappear. But at a million dollars a year per care for this girl, I don't think it's realistic to assume that the family would receive enough donations/assistance to cover it. If you have experience otherwise, enlighten me.

[Blake]

Fair points. I'll take a different tact. Say instead of talking about a 5 year old girl who needs $1M/yr in medical care we're talking about a 65 year old woman needing the same treatment. Still okay to focus solely on keeping that woman alive and not worry about how much it costs?

What if?

What should be the age cut off iyo?

[LnGrrrR]

While there is no doubt money spent on those whose lives are largely done, I would suspect that there are an order of magnitude more whose lives are not quite done yet, and benefit significantly from treatment. Don't examine the exception without considering the rule, CC.

The OP was more about the law repealing the cap on lifetime payouts, but that wasn't very clear. Mea culpa.

[Blake]

Fair enough, but how many little girls like this do you think are out there? I'm just wondering what the bill to the gov would be if they enacted a policy like this.

I wonder how many insurance execs out there make more than $5 million a year