Blue Shield Won't Pay NorCal Mom's Cancer Treatment

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: blanghorstYou might have a point, one which I asked earlier and no one responded. So I will ask you -- if Medicare/Medicaid is so efficient/good, why isn't your proposal being floated? I am not being facetious here, I honestly don't know the answer and hope someone else can explain it to me.

Why isn't socialized medicine being proposed? Because a great many if not almost all of our Congressmen receive $$$ from the big insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, the AMA, and other greedy interests. The end result will probably be that any "health care reform" legislation will probably result in those parties receiving even more money from the American people and a larger percentage of the nation's GDP.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Patranus
And what will single payer change about this?

Can't even get cortisone shots in England for back pain.

EDIT:
If you actually read the article there is NOTHING that says the "gamma knife" procedure is better than hole brain radiation. While it might have more side effects, the according to the article the effectiveness is roughly the same

So, it is perfectly logical that the cheaper alternative would be used if the RESULTS are the same in terms of treatment.

Clearly that cortisone shot is life saving ....


Cortisone for pain management is like getting antibiotics for a sore throat. Your comparisons suck.

 

[themusgrat]

It's pretty obvious that insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to do this. There's no need to argue.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Fixed

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: jbourne77
I have to admit that I am quite surprised that this particular topic was chosen as a plausible vehicle for a UHC offense.

Yeah, in this particular situation, I am not sure UHC would matter so it is puzzling why this article was posted. Would it cover the gamma knife treatment? Who knows, but it is somewhat irrelevant because just like with private insurance, choices will have to be made. If an alternative treatment is available with an equal chance of increasing the survivability of the individual, but costs much less, the cheaper treatment will be mandated regardless of whether it is an insurance company or the government. Neither private insurance or the government can afford to cover every possible treatment under the sun.

According to our Veteran's "UHC", they received the gamma knife for free. In. 2001.

Information technology. Information technology is at the heart of most changes in VHA. We use technology to process clinical and administrative information, to automate previously manual processes, to deliver care across distances, to train staff, and to conduct research. Examples of the use of technology include the computerized patient record, a cost accounting and analysis system (DSS), consolidated mail out pharmacy (CMOP), simulated patient training in surgery and anesthesia, gamma-knife radiation therapy, advanced neuro-imaging, bar-coding to aid in the accuracy of medication administration, tele-health, and many others.

Text

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

According to our Veteran's "UHC", they received the gamma knife for free. In. 2001.

Information technology. Information technology is at the heart of most changes in VHA. We use technology to process clinical and administrative information, to automate previously manual processes, to deliver care across distances, to train staff, and to conduct research. Examples of the use of technology include the computerized patient record, a cost accounting and analysis system (DSS), consolidated mail out pharmacy (CMOP), simulated patient training in surgery and anesthesia, gamma-knife radiation therapy, advanced neuro-imaging, bar-coding to aid in the accuracy of medication administration, tele-health, and many others.

Text

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that link only mentions the use of gamma-knife radiation. It makes no claims that it is "free treatment," and more specifically does not mention that gamma knife radiation would be used in a case such as the unfortunate woman in the OP.

I fail to see how this proves anything in favor of the VA or UHC. In fact, Dr. Garthwaite states:

Resource allocation. To date, no ideal system to allocate resources in health care has been devised. Fee for service plans lead to overuse of procedures and high costs while managed care plans are criticized for restriction of choice of provider and of access to specialty care.

 

[sapiens74]

Who needs a government bureaucrat between you and your doctor when an insurance claims adjuster is so much better? Apparently these claims adjusters know more about cancer treatment than world-renowned oncologists.

Problem is most of us don't want either.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: sapiens74

Who needs a government bureaucrat between you and your doctor when an insurance claims adjuster is so much better? Apparently these claims adjusters know more about cancer treatment than world-renowned oncologists.

Problem is most of us don't want either.

Well, you are going to get one, so pick.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

I fail to see how this makes a case for the "utopian" government-run Universal Health Care, which has been proven countless times to deny treatment and ration care in the name of costs. This situation is unfortunate, but it's not the norm for private insurance, nor will situations like this just disappear under government-run health care. Anybody who truly believes that government-run health care will magically approve every single medical procedure because it's "free!" is naive or willfully ignorant...probably both.

This post is nothing more than a typical liberal tug at the heartstrings to say "private insurance BAD!", "government-run health care GOOD!".

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: senseamp
The company has no business deciding her care. It's health insurance, they are there to pay for care her treating doctors decide is necessary, not pick and choose care for her. They are just providing a financial product.

I thought you Democrats said we paid too much for health care as it is. You want to pay more?

If you had any thinking skills you would realize that what the Dem's are saying is that for what we are spending on health care, everybody could have it and we could still save some money.

But alas, you have no thinking skills.

And yet, no plan has been presented which will accomplish this savings.

Just forcing health care providers to work for what medicare/medicaid pays would accomplish that goal. Then once preventative measures start paying their dividends there will be even more saving.

The money you would save by slashing our pay wouldn't save much at all, but it would give people a good reason to do something else. That generates more work for the rest which leads to earlier retirement and people will look elsewhere for careers. You can then explain to them that it shouldn't be about money, but working harder for less while being considered leeches of the system.

That will take care of rationing.

How many times has big business busted unions and started the same people doing the same jobs over at 2/3 the pay and also reneged oh the retirees health care promises? Send not to know for who the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.

So, what goes around comes around.

<shrug>
I know you hate us and if you can get even for someone not catching your cancer you would punish them. That's OK. We're used to sick people in more than just body. The end result is that you are going to find it impossible to use us as whipping boys because no one will have you spit on them. The supply of competent people will dwindle, and then no matter what you'll have accomplished your goal of destroying the delivery system. At that point it everyone is screwed, because contrary to your ideas, you aren't going to hire people off the street to replace us.

The result is that the Democrats will soon find that they are a footnote in the page of future history, the ones who inflicted a fiasco on the public. The Dems know that, and as a result you'll just have to rattle your cage a little more in frustration, because the few percent you would save by fucking us over will have destroyed them. They aren't going to bite, sorry.

So we're not really concerned about your idiot views on how to save money. We're more concerned about saving your sorry ass, or at least make the time you have left as good as possible.

So when you get treatments or see a health care provider, remember to spit in their face. It will make your remaining days so much better.

Complaining about private insurance, then wanting the government to remedy the situation by destroying the infrastructure (us) isn't going to happen, so plan an alternate revenge.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
According to our Veteran's "UHC", they received the gamma knife for free. In. 2001.

Information technology. Information technology is at the heart of most changes in VHA. We use technology to process clinical and administrative information, to automate previously manual processes, to deliver care across distances, to train staff, and to conduct research. Examples of the use of technology include the computerized patient record, a cost accounting and analysis system (DSS), consolidated mail out pharmacy (CMOP), simulated patient training in surgery and anesthesia, gamma-knife radiation therapy, advanced neuro-imaging, bar-coding to aid in the accuracy of medication administration, tele-health, and many others.

Text

Oh, I am not disputing that some insurance plans would cover that specific treatment. What I am saying is that I am not sure we have enough information to determine if BCBS is truly in the wrong. They did not deny treatment -- the would cover the whole brain radiation, which they feel achieves comparable results. If gamma knife and whole brain radiation achieve the same rates of survivability, why shouldn't the insurance company pick the cheaper option? If there is a study somewhere that says gamma ray achieves significanly higher survivability rates, then that is a different issue. Trust me, I am not defending insurance companies but at this stage, I personally don't have enough information to say "Oh my GOD! BCBS is horrible!"

You can bet that if the government has to choose between 2 treatments with one being significantly cheaper than the other, they will mandate the cheaper option -- the same as the insurance companies do.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: senseamp
The company has no business deciding her care. It's health insurance, they are there to pay for care her treating doctors decide is necessary, not pick and choose care for her. They are just providing a financial product.

I thought you Democrats said we paid too much for health care as it is. You want to pay more?

If you had any thinking skills you would realize that what the Dem's are saying is that for what we are spending on health care, everybody could have it and we could still save some money.

But alas, you have no thinking skills.

And yet, no plan has been presented which will accomplish this savings.

Just forcing health care providers to work for what medicare/medicaid pays would accomplish that goal. Then once preventative measures start paying their dividends there will be even more saving.

The money you would save by slashing our pay wouldn't save much at all, but it would give people a good reason to do something else. That generates more work for the rest which leads to earlier retirement and people will look elsewhere for careers. You can then explain to them that it shouldn't be about money, but working harder for less while being considered leeches of the system.

That will take care of rationing.

How many times has big business busted unions and started the same people doing the same jobs over at 2/3 the pay and also reneged oh the retirees health care promises? Send not to know for who the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.

So, what goes around comes around.

<shrug>
I know you hate us and if you can get even for someone not catching your cancer you would punish them. That's OK. We're used to sick people in more than just body. The end result is that you are going to find it impossible to use us as whipping boys because no one will have you spit on them. The supply of competent people will dwindle, and then no matter what you'll have accomplished your goal of destroying the delivery system. At that point it everyone is screwed, because contrary to your ideas, you aren't going to hire people off the street to replace us.

The result is that the Democrats will soon find that they are a footnote in the page of future history, the ones who inflicted a fiasco on the public. The Dems know that, and as a result you'll just have to rattle your cage a little more in frustration, because the few percent you would save by fucking us over will have destroyed them. They aren't going to bite, sorry.

So we're not really concerned about your idiot views on how to save money. We're more concerned about saving your sorry ass, or at least make the time you have left as good as possible.

So when you get treatments or see a health care provider, remember to spit in their face. It will make your remaining days so much better.

Complaining about private insurance, then wanting the government to remedy the situation by destroying the infrastructure (us) isn't going to happen, so plan an alternate revenge.

I don't hate you, I hate what you REPRESENT. I was for UHC long before I knew I had cancer, it's just a sad coincidence that I now have proof I can lord over assholes like you who are only concerned with themselves.

Thanks for proving what a shitass you are by attacking me like that though.

:lips:

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Fixed

LOL, your pathetic.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Why isn't socialized medicine being proposed? Because a great many if not almost all of our Congressmen receive $$$ from the big insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, the AMA, and other greedy interests. The end result will probably be that any "health care reform" legislation will probably result in those parties receiving even more money from the American people and a larger percentage of the nation's GDP.

Correct -- the CBO said as much about the current plan.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't hate you, I hate what you REPRESENT. I was for UHC long before I knew I had cancer, it's just a sad coincidence that I now have proof I can lord over assholes like you who are only concerned with themselves. Thanks for proving what a shitass you are by attacking me like that though.

Considering that you would treat us as dogs, I haven't much sympathy for you. I represent a group of people who would do our best to help others. That's what we do. We have a problem with what the government isn't telling us. I don't know of any practitioner who does not want a better system, but so far nothing has been proposed which would indicate that it is.

You haven't proof of anything other than your hatred. I've suggested a way that Obama could get a better system by first finding out what could work and then go for implementation. And so we who try to help people like you are only thinking of ourselves, while you who are thinking of the greater good want to destroy the means by which others get help. I am sorry you are ill, but that hadn't anything to do with us. You have shit luck to be in your situation and if it could be fixed I'd say spend whatever it takes to make it better.

That said, you are clearly so bitter that you have lost perspective since what you propose would only harm what people can do. I called you on it. We'll have some form of UHC. You don't care if it sucks or not but a lot of us do. That's why I bitch slapped you, in an attempt to get you out of your "get even" or whatever childish revenge fantasy you are living in.

Leave the pity party and think about what it is that can make things better for others.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Why isn't socialized medicine being proposed? Because a great many if not almost all of our Congressmen receive $$$ from the big insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, the AMA, and other greedy interests. The end result will probably be that any "health care reform" legislation will probably result in those parties receiving even more money from the American people and a larger percentage of the nation's GDP.

Correct -- the CBO said as much about the current plan.

GOP and Blue Dogs are working hard to take out any cost containment provisions out of the current bill.

 

[theeedude]

This basically neutralizes the argument that there will be a bureaucrat standing between you and your doctor under government public option, since there is already one standing there. Plus for currently uninsured who are going to be covered by public option, it's not like they even have a doctor right now for a bureaucrat to stand between.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: senseamp
This basically neutralizes the argument that there will be a bureaucrat standing between you and your doctor under government public option, since there is already one standing there. Plus for currently uninsured who are going to be covered by public option, it's not like they even have a doctor right now for a bureaucrat to stand between.

I think there needs to be more coverage, but I believe it's unrealistic to think you can stop the increase cost of care based on the aging demographics alone. No matter what, the next 40 years or so are going to be difficult.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp
This basically neutralizes the argument that there will be a bureaucrat standing between you and your doctor under government public option, since there is already one standing there. Plus for currently uninsured who are going to be covered by public option, it's not like they even have a doctor right now for a bureaucrat to stand between.

I think there needs to be more coverage, but I believe it's unrealistic to think you can stop the increase cost of care based on the aging demographics alone. No matter what, the next 40 years or so are going to be difficult.

What will stop it is companies dropping medical coverage for employees, just like they dropped pensions. If I was an employer, I'd drop it and tell workers to write to their congressman if they want a health plan

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: fallout man

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp
Wow, that high tech treatment that she won't be getting is the best in the world. Great stuff. Not for her, but in general.

So would it be any better if UHC didn't get her the best in the world either?

Oh snap, of course they would. UHC will take care of everything, and if it doesn't then the lie will have been worth it.

What makes you think that UHC would deny her treatment? The government can just print/borrow more money to pay for her treatment.

They certainly did it to kill thousands, so why not do it to save thousands?

Because Obama has made it point to point out that UHC would always go with the cheaper option.

 

[miniMUNCH]

Ya know... we can these individual cases to try to put as big a black eye on our present healthcare system.

But... inherent in all of this is the belief that somehow the government won't being doing this sort of shit. I think this is an ill founded belief.

Single payer healthcare is gonna get rationed hard. How hard? I don't know...

But we can expect the government to say 'no' to a lot of treatments of this nature... possibly not as in this particular case but in many life threatening cases the government will say something like, "this surgery will give you 35% chance of living for another 5 years with additional treatment needed on an ongoing basis... we tally that we'd be spending 80k+ per year to keep you alive with only 35% of survival past 5 years. Not worth it to john Q tax payer... we are sorry."

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp
This basically neutralizes the argument that there will be a bureaucrat standing between you and your doctor under government public option, since there is already one standing there. Plus for currently uninsured who are going to be covered by public option, it's not like they even have a doctor right now for a bureaucrat to stand between.

I think there needs to be more coverage, but I believe it's unrealistic to think you can stop the increase cost of care based on the aging demographics alone. No matter what, the next 40 years or so are going to be difficult.

What will stop it is companies dropping medical coverage for employees, just like they dropped pensions. If I was an employer, I'd drop it and tell workers to write to their congressman if they want a health plan

The single biggest proponent of UHC is WAL MART. Followed by EVERY OTHER BIG BUSINESS. Why? Because it unloads the costs off of business back onto the employeer/tax payer.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: fallout man

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp
Wow, that high tech treatment that she won't be getting is the best in the world. Great stuff. Not for her, but in general.

So would it be any better if UHC didn't get her the best in the world either?

Oh snap, of course they would. UHC will take care of everything, and if it doesn't then the lie will have been worth it.

What makes you think that UHC would deny her treatment? The government can just print/borrow more money to pay for her treatment.

They certainly did it to kill thousands, so why not do it to save thousands?

Because Obama has made it point to point out that UHC would always go with the cheaper option.

That's under the public option. You can still get BCBS if you prefer to pay more to get rejected by an insurance company bureaucrat instead of a government one.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp
This basically neutralizes the argument that there will be a bureaucrat standing between you and your doctor under government public option, since there is already one standing there. Plus for currently uninsured who are going to be covered by public option, it's not like they even have a doctor right now for a bureaucrat to stand between.

I think there needs to be more coverage, but I believe it's unrealistic to think you can stop the increase cost of care based on the aging demographics alone. No matter what, the next 40 years or so are going to be difficult.

What will stop it is companies dropping medical coverage for employees, just like they dropped pensions. If I was an employer, I'd drop it and tell workers to write to their congressman if they want a health plan

The single biggest proponent of UHC is WAL MART. Followed by EVERY OTHER BIG BUSINESS. Why? Because it unloads the costs off of business back onto the employeer/tax payer.

And the problem is? Providing health insurance should not be the job of an employer. It's a social safety net.

 

[fallout man]

Hay guys, what's goin' on in this thread?