Britain's NHS refused to pay for liver transplant for cancer survivor, resulting in her death.

[StageLeft]

Funny thing is, Britain's NHS is a catastrofvck. In fact, it's why my parents moved our entire family across the pond when I was a kid. I am sure it sucks worse now.

 

[Cellulose]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Funny thing is, Britain's NHS is a catastrofvck. In fact, it's why my parents moved our entire family across the pond when I was a kid. I am sure it sucks worse now.

The NHS is not bad at all, I am moving to Canada soon and I am going to have to start paying for certain medicines which I didn't before. Even if you didn't find it good enough for w/e reason, you could of gotten private insurance on top of the NHS.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Cellulose

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Funny thing is, Britain's NHS is a catastrofvck. In fact, it's why my parents moved our entire family across the pond when I was a kid. I am sure it sucks worse now.

The NHS is not bad at all, I am moving to Canada soon and I am going to have to start paying for certain medicines which I didn't before. Even if you didn't find it good enough for w/e reason, you could of gotten private insurance on top of the NHS.

No consensus on most issues, but at least a million people would disagree with you.

 

[Infohawk]

You can argue that there should be universal healthcare, but it's ridiculous to expect a company to contract with you to insure you for everything medical-related if the CONTRACT DOES NOT SAY THAT. All insurers have exclusions. If they fail to give you coverage when they should, you can sue them for a lot of money. It happens all the time. Hire a lawyer. But don't expect an insurer to cover pre-existing issues if they say ahead of time that they won't.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: JS80
So let's say you come across a "doctor" who claims to have a new experimental procedure where you eat crushed 4 carat near perfect diamonds, you think your insurance should pay for it?

medical science doesn't work that way retard.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: JS80
So let's say you come across a "doctor" who claims to have a new experimental procedure where you eat crushed 4 carat near perfect diamonds, you think your insurance should pay for it?

medical science doesn't work that way retard.

Yeah it was a pretty impossible and straw man argument.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
1. Weve had this thread a few times before

2. Im on the CA committee for liver transplants. We declined her because she had cancer and theres a thousand cancer free patients on the waitlist who would project to have a longer lifespan.

3. Britian wouldnt have even offered her a transplant int he first place, see point #2.

4. Total physician reimbursement for a liver transplant is around $10K between the surgeon and anesthesiologist. A lifetime of immunosuppresants costs nearly 2 million bucks. Blame the drug companies not the "evil" doctors

Are you saying this girl could of had a good chance of surviving and costing Cigna some big bucks if things had been done properly for her?

No. The odds of her not rejecting the liver would be extremely low as shes already rejected bone marrow and is also fighting cancer again.

The way the current transplant system works, she would have never gotten a new liver unless the family found some to give it to her independently of the transplant lists(which is extremely rare).

And yes there is already rationing when it comes to transplants because there are so few. Transplants go to those who are most likely to recover long term. Not someone who has rejected a bone marrow transplant and has cancer.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Yeah it was a pretty impossible and straw man argument.

You really can't see his point?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If the diamond post wasn't clear it means thatpaying someone does not mean you should expect unlimited services you did not contract out for. That would kill any business, even government.

 

[theeedude]

I LOLed Except for the whole dying at the end part. But if it wasn't so tragic, it would be a hilarious system of healthcare.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
1. Weve had this thread a few times before

2. Im on the CA committee for liver transplants. We declined her because she had cancer and theres a thousand cancer free patients on the waitlist who would project to have a longer lifespan.

3. Britian wouldnt have even offered her a transplant int he first place, see point #2.

4. Total physician reimbursement for a liver transplant is around $10K between the surgeon and anesthesiologist. A lifetime of immunosuppresants costs nearly 2 million bucks. Blame the drug companies not the "evil" doctors

Are you saying this girl could of had a good chance of surviving and costing Cigna some big bucks if things had been done properly for her?

No. The odds of her not rejecting the liver would be extremely low as shes already rejected bone marrow and is also fighting cancer again.

The way the current transplant system works, she would have never gotten a new liver unless the family found some to give it to her independently of the transplant lists(which is extremely rare).

And yes there is already rationing when it comes to transplants because there are so few. Transplants go to those who are most likely to recover long term. Not someone who has rejected a bone marrow transplant and has cancer.

Shh...nobody is interested in this nonsense! WTF do you know anyhow, I'm waiting for a chiropractors opinion.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Yeah it was a pretty impossible and straw man argument.

You really can't see his point?

His point is stupid along with all these arguments.

Apparently for some of you it is okay if our insurers cut us off for being expensive, but here the slightest possibility of a problem in a UHC society and you use it to attack UHC.

It is sickening and it is evil.

 

[theeedude]

Shouldn't a transplant committee be making that decision, not Cigna? If she is not a good candidate, she would not be offered a transplant whether Cigna would pay for it or not.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Shouldn't a transplant committee be making that decision, not Cigna? If she is not a good candidate, she would not be offered a transplant whether Cigna would pay for it or not.

Exactly.

If she is offered the liver and can't get it put in because no one will pay for it, that is just evil in my book.