How to Recognize Death Panels

[Light]

PHOENIX -- A Valley man was in the surgery room, prepped and ready for his life-saving liver transplant when doctors told him the state's Medicaid plan wouldn't cover the procedure.
Francisco Felix, who has Hepatitis C, has been on the waiting list for a new liver since April, his wife said. A liver became available and Felix was ready for surgery at Banner Good Samaritan Hospital.
Arizona's medicaid agency, AHCCCS, which has recently cut funding for some services, refused to pay for Felix's surgery.
AHCCCS no longer cover liver transplants but not for patients with Hepatitis C, according to Jennifer Carusett, a spokeswoman for AHCCCS.

The cuts were part of the Republican-lead legislature's plan to balance the budget, which Gov. Jan Brewer signed. The policy change took effect Oct. 1.

"I don't understand how she (Brewer) has the heart ... how this one person can make such a difference to all of us," said Sandra Felix, Francisco Felix's neice.
Democratic lawmakers are demanding a special session to discuss reinstating the transplant funds.
Leah Landrum Taylor, a Democrat who represents District 16 in Phoenix said she was horrified by what happened Tuesday.
"When this vote came before the floor, on the senate, we all spoke about what type of ramification this was going to have. When you slice things like this out of the budget, what we said is you're going to be taking away lives. So you're putting lives in your hands and you're going to decide to take it away. I call it a vote of no mercy," said Landrum Taylor.
Republican Rep. John Kavanaugh, from Fountain Hills, said he believed that lawmakers were going to take up the issue of reinstating transplant cuts first thing when they return to work in January. But he also added that he was not opposed to a special session.
The liver Felix hoped to receive Tuesday was directly donated to him by a family friend who suddenly died Monday. But because Felix could not come up with $200,000 by 10a.m. Tuesday, the liver was given to someone else. Felix went to the hospital hoping AHCCCS would fund the operation on an emergency ruling.
"The liver is gone because we don't have the money. That's why we lost this opportunity. But we have hope that something good is going to come," said his wife, Flor Felix.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Light

PHOENIX -- A Valley man was in the surgery room, prepped and ready for his life-saving liver transplant when doctors told him the state's Medicaid plan wouldn't cover the procedure.
Francisco Felix, who has Hepatitis C, has been on the waiting list for a new liver since April, his wife said. A liver became available and Felix was ready for surgery at Banner Good Samaritan Hospital.
Arizona's medicaid agency, AHCCCS, which has recently cut funding for some services, refused to pay for Felix's surgery.
AHCCCS no longer cover liver transplants but not for patients with Hepatitis C, according to Jennifer Carusett, a spokeswoman for AHCCCS.

The cuts were part of the Republican-lead legislature's plan to balance the budget, which Gov. Jan Brewer signed. The policy change took effect Oct. 1.

"I don't understand how she (Brewer) has the heart ... how this one person can make such a difference to all of us," said Sandra Felix, Francisco Felix's neice.
Democratic lawmakers are demanding a special session to discuss reinstating the transplant funds.
Leah Landrum Taylor, a Democrat who represents District 16 in Phoenix said she was horrified by what happened Tuesday.
"When this vote came before the floor, on the senate, we all spoke about what type of ramification this was going to have. When you slice things like this out of the budget, what we said is you're going to be taking away lives. So you're putting lives in your hands and you're going to decide to take it away. I call it a vote of no mercy," said Landrum Taylor.
Republican Rep. John Kavanaugh, from Fountain Hills, said he believed that lawmakers were going to take up the issue of reinstating transplant cuts first thing when they return to work in January. But he also added that he was not opposed to a special session.
The liver Felix hoped to receive Tuesday was directly donated to him by a family friend who suddenly died Monday. But because Felix could not come up with $200,000 by 10a.m. Tuesday, the liver was given to someone else. Felix went to the hospital hoping AHCCCS would fund the operation on an emergency ruling.
"The liver is gone because we don't have the money. That's why we lost this opportunity. But we have hope that something good is going to come," said his wife, Flor Felix.

In our church we pray for healing.

[Sam]

I was diagnosed with ILD (Interstitial Lung Disease) several months ago. I was told that there is no cure except for a lung transplant. I am 73 years old and live on a pension and Social Security. In my opinion it would be morally wrong for me to get new lungs if someone younger (especially a parent or wage earner) could use them.

In the case we are discussing here, does the patient have an incurable condition and is he on public assistance/welfare/medicaid/medicare?

Remember the case a few years ago when a prominent baseball "hero" who destroyed his liver by drinking got moved to the top of the list and got a new liver? He didn't live long after that. Should that liver have gone to someone younger?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Light

PHOENIX -- A Valley man was in the surgery room, prepped and ready for his life-saving liver transplant when doctors told him the state's Medicaid plan wouldn't cover the procedure.
Francisco Felix, who has Hepatitis C, has been on the waiting list for a new liver since April, his wife said. A liver became available and Felix was ready for surgery at Banner Good Samaritan Hospital.
Arizona's medicaid agency, AHCCCS, which has recently cut funding for some services, refused to pay for Felix's surgery.
AHCCCS no longer cover liver transplants but not for patients with Hepatitis C, according to Jennifer Carusett, a spokeswoman for AHCCCS.

The cuts were part of the Republican-lead legislature's plan to balance the budget, which Gov. Jan Brewer signed. The policy change took effect Oct. 1.

"I don't understand how she (Brewer) has the heart ... how this one person can make such a difference to all of us," said Sandra Felix, Francisco Felix's neice.
Democratic lawmakers are demanding a special session to discuss reinstating the transplant funds.
Leah Landrum Taylor, a Democrat who represents District 16 in Phoenix said she was horrified by what happened Tuesday.
"When this vote came before the floor, on the senate, we all spoke about what type of ramification this was going to have. When you slice things like this out of the budget, what we said is you're going to be taking away lives. So you're putting lives in your hands and you're going to decide to take it away. I call it a vote of no mercy," said Landrum Taylor.
Republican Rep. John Kavanaugh, from Fountain Hills, said he believed that lawmakers were going to take up the issue of reinstating transplant cuts first thing when they return to work in January. But he also added that he was not opposed to a special session.
The liver Felix hoped to receive Tuesday was directly donated to him by a family friend who suddenly died Monday. But because Felix could not come up with $200,000 by 10a.m. Tuesday, the liver was given to someone else. Felix went to the hospital hoping AHCCCS would fund the operation on an emergency ruling.
"The liver is gone because we don't have the money. That's why we lost this opportunity. But we have hope that something good is going to come," said his wife, Flor Felix.

News flash bud light.

I know this young daddy is facing a fatal disease. His main illness is HCV or Hepatitis C. If ruined his current liver. The number one reason of transplant failure in patients with hcv is recurrence of HCV. Within 24 hours his new liver may be infected.

The best way for a young male to get hepatitis is by getting tattoos. I realize transplants are expensive and they are high risk for healthy recipients.

I know you want to attack and blame the cut throat Republican Governor. She played no part in his illness.

Hundreds wait for livers. I vote that the next liver donation goes to a person that doesn't have HIV or HCV.

Just for your medical info. He lost his liver because of HCV. A new liver will not cure his HCV.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by coadie

News flash bud light.

I know this young daddy is facing a fatal disease. His main illness is HCV or Hepatitis C. If ruined his current liver. The number one reason of transplant failure in patients with hcv is recurrence of HCV. Within 24 hours his new liver may be infected.

The best way for a young male to get hepatitis is by getting tattoos. I realize transplants are expensive and they are high risk for healthy recipients.

I know you want to attack and blame the cut throat Republican Governor. She played no part in his illness.

Hundreds wait for livers. I vote that the next liver donation goes to a person that doesn't have HIV or HCV.

Just for your medical info. He lost his liver because of HCV. A new liver will not cure his HCV.

You still did not address that OBVIOUS travesty here....


I can clearly see the comparison of this Governor's decision to the insane, "death panel" scare tactic that her party touted as part of their oppositon to healthcare reform.


Then the nerve she has for telling folks to petition Washington for more funds....

What happened to her mis-spent stimulus funds from Washington?


Surely I am not the only Republican on this forum to see the irony in this tragic situation!


Bottom line: the liver was donated specifically to that guy-- it should have gone to him!


I guess some people would simply let him die because he's going to die anyway.... "Why waste money on his life? It's not our fault he has HCV! Should have been more careful. Oh well...."

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

You still did not address that OBVIOUS travesty here....


I can clearly see the comparison of this Governor's decision to the insane, "death panel" scare tactic that her party touted as part of their oppositon to healthcare reform.


Then the nerve she has for telling folks to petition Washington for more funds....

What happened to her mis-spent stimulus funds from Washington?


Surely I am not the only Republican on this forum to see the irony in this tragic situation!


Bottom line: the liver was donated specifically to that guy-- it should have gone to him!


I guess some people would simply let him die because he's going to die anyway.... "Why waste money on his life? It's not our fault he has HCV! Should have been more careful. Oh well...."

You seem to be clueless regarding medicine.
Free blood doesn't create free transfusions
Free organs do NOT mean transplants are free.

If water and salt are free, why does a bottle of lactated Ringers IV cost 110 dollars?

The presenting problem is the man is infected with HCV and it stands a strong chance of killing the next liver.

Obama wants our medicine to be like socialized medicine in the UK. They wouldn't cover this either.

[Walks_in_islam]

Neither does Cigna so I guess we are already down there with the UK aren't we. (BUT they live longer <grin>)

Claim that the choice of living or dying is not already being made in boardrooms and legislative offices all you want. There is NO difference between a Cigna claims processor and an appointed official when the decision is made on the basis of $. Nor is there a difference when the emergency room staff arranges for a taxi to dump uninsured patients on the street around the corner. In all cases the decision to provide treatment is made on the basis of economics. (about that taxi - decision made on the spot by the provider). Do NOT claim "oh its always available blah blah" it is not.

Defending the current system on one hand and bashing a public system for the same reasons and on the same basis that the current system is being overhauled does give the impression of cluelessness......

The death of 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan (pictured) has been placed front and center. Sarkisyan died on Dec. 20 after Cigna initially denied her coverage for a liver transplant, citing insufficient evidence that the procedure would be safe or effective. Cigna defended its handling of the case.

Originally Posted by coadie

You seem to be clueless regarding medicine.
Free blood doesn't create free transfusions
Free organs do NOT mean transplants are free.

If water and salt are free, why does a bottle of lactated Ringers IV cost 110 dollars?

The presenting problem is the man is infected with HCV and it stands a strong chance of killing the next liver.

Obama wants our medicine to be like socialized medicine in the UK. They wouldn't cover this either.

[Walks_in_islam]

The final one does have a name tag. At the end God decides if you live or die, how long you live, and how you die.

Try not to lose sight of that - He runs the death panel. The best we can do is go at His will with dignity.

Originally Posted by HaShaliach

Not all decision makers have a name tag.

Rationing Meds Of course, this course of action was started long before Obamacare. However, unless this trend is stopped, it will continue. For most folks, this is still a 'non-issue'. That is, until they are the ones directly affected.

See? Here is the meds that might save your life - or at least prolong it for a while. But, since you are no longer viewed as a productive economic unit, you don''t qualify. May your final days not be burdensome on society.

[aegsm76]

"There is NO difference between a Cigna claims processor and an appointed official when the decision is made on the basis of $."

Wii - this is not true. Cigna as a private company is more willing to work with a patient, than any government agency will ever be. Cigna is also legally liable and the government is not. I have employees that have to work with Cigna/Blue Cross and the government. Guess who actually works with the employees and spends hours in resolving issues? It sure is not the government.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

"There is NO difference between a Cigna claims processor and an appointed official when the decision is made on the basis of $."

Wii - this is not true. Cigna as a private company is more willing to work with a patient, than any government agency will ever be. Cigna is also legally liable and the government is not. I have employees that have to work with Cigna/Blue Cross and the government. Guess who actually works with the employees and spends hours in resolving issues? It sure is not the government.

Socialized medicine, medicare runs about twice as many claims rejected as does Cigna. Cigna also runs fraud detection software which the medicare restricts.