Death Panels in Arizona

[dca221]

And they are run by the Republicans!

First the republicans cut the budget of the agency that supports the transplant patients. Then press finds out the budget cuts were based on flawed data, the Republican Chairman of the Appropriations Committee agrees the data is flawed. When the shit hits the fan and the press reports what the Republican death panel is doing, Gov Brewer refuses a special legistlative session to fix it, because the program costs too much money! How much does it cost, you may ask? $1.5M -- that's it, $1.5M!!! The Republicans running the State of Arizona cannot find $1.5M to save these patients lives! What is wrong with them? What is wrong with the citizens of Arizona that they cannot pay just a little more (about $1 per person a year?) to fund this program, which is a matter of life-and-death?

If you are rich enough, you can pay for your own medical bills. If you do not have spare $200K lying around, it's too bad -- you are own your own! Just like the teabaggers want: freedom from government. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ... well, may be not so much life, but at least you are free from the government tyranny! Got it! Thanks Gov Brewer and the Arizona republicans for watching my liberty for me! Now, how about that liver transplant?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-11-17-arizona-cuts-liver-transplant_N.htm

http://www.azcentral.com/news/elect.../10/20101010arizona-medicaid-transplants.html

Budget cuts stop Phoenix man from getting new liver
By Michelle Ye Hee Lee, The Arizona Republic
PHOENIX — A liver-disease patient missed his opportunity for an organ transplant Tuesday, becoming the most dire example yet of an Arizonan denied life-saving medical care because of budget cuts to the state's health-care system for the poor.
Francisco Felix, 32, of Laveen, Ariz., was in the hospital ready to receive a liver that was donated to him late Monday night. But the liver went to another recipient Tuesday morning because he couldn't find $200,000 overnight to pay for the liver transplant, one of seven kinds of transplant surgery the state stopped covering Oct. 1.
Felix was the first liver-transplant patient known to be affected but is not likely to be the last.

Of the about 100 Arizonans enrolled in the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System who are awaiting transplants no longer covered, 60 of them are candidates like Felix with liver disease related to hepatitis C. Transplant is their only cure.

Last month, Goodyear, Ariz., leukemia patient Mark Price became a poster child for the impact of the budget cuts after his doctor found donors who matched his bone marrow a day after Price lost coverage. Price's story gained attention nationally and an anonymous donor later covered all costs for his surgery.

Because bone marrow comes from living donors, the donated marrow was able to be used at a late date.

It's a different story for liver-transplant patients.

The chances of finding a liver donor are slim because these transplants usually are livers from deceased donors and the demand far exceeds the supply.

If a donor is found, the surgery must take place in less than a day.

Patients who lost transplant coverage have been allowed to stay on the waiting list, but when a match is found they are faced with a ticking clock to come up with up to half a million dollars to pay for the procedure.

Francisco's story

Monday night, Felix's wife received a call from a family friend whose wife was nearing death and wanted to donate her liver to Felix. Their organs matched, and doctors prepared Felix for a surgery set for 10 a.m. Tuesday.

Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center gave Felix until that time to come up with the money for his surgery.

Despite efforts to reach out to the media and the public, the family could not raise the money. Felix was discharged from the hospital and his liver went to the next patient on the waiting list.

"It was his day today. If we had the money, someone to pay for it, he would have received the liver," said Flor, Francisco's wife. "How can people make this decision? How does one person have the right to decide who's going to live and who's not?"
At least 23 low-income patients at Banner Good Samaritan are waiting for transplants, hospital spokesman Bill Byron said.

Byron said patients must meet three criteria before receiving transplants: They must be healthy enough for a transplant procedure, they must have a network of people who can support them after surgery and they must be able to afford the surgery.

Patients who can't afford the surgery after finding a match are placed on a hold list until they can pay for it.

Flor Felix has applied to the National Transplant Assistance Fund so that the family can raise money for her husband's surgery. Byron said doctors believe Francisco will be healthy enough to receive a transplant if another match comes along within the next year or two.

According to United Network for Organ Sharing, a national nonprofit that is contracted with the federal government to manage the U.S. organ-transplant system, the average wait time for a liver is 796 days. Francisco has been on the waiting list since April and only got this chance so quickly because the family friend wanted to donate to him.

Budget cuts

Arizona legislators earlier this year decided to stop paying for certain transplants based on analyses by the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System.
Certain kinds of pancreas, lung and bone-marrow transplants are among those no longer covered.

The state agency stopped covering liver transplants for hepatitis C because of the procedure's low long-term success rate.

According to the agency, studies showed that when a patient with hepatitis C receives a liver transplant, the virus can infect the new liver within 24 hours. The virus returning is the No. 1 cause of the new liver failing, according to the analysis.

But according to the national transplant organization, transplant is the best treatment option for patients with end-stage liver failure.

Following the public reports of Price's transplant story last month, state lawmakers asked Gov. Jan Brewer to reconsider the cuts. Tuesday, a group of Democrats asked again.

But Brewer's spokesman, Paul Senseman, said the governor would not consider a special legislative session unless someone proposes a way for the state to make up for the $1 billion gap in the agency's budget.

The clipping below is from azcentral.com

Legislators based the decision to stop paying for certain transplants on data supplied by AHCCCS about survival rates of transplant recipients.

The Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee is now reviewing that data along with conflicting information Valley transplant doctors sent to legislators.

State Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said some lawmakers agree that they based the cuts on potentially flawed data. He said they would review JLBC's analysis to reconsider transplant cuts. However, Gov. Jan Brewer would have to call for a special session before they could reinstate funding.

Brewer's spokesman, Paul Senseman, said the governor would not consider a special session unless someone proposes how the state would make up for the $1 billion gap in AHCCCS' budget.

Reinstating the transplant benefits would cost the state about $1.5 million, according to AHCCCS.
Democratic state Rep. Matt Heinz, a physician at the Tucson Medical Center, said the transplant cuts are life-threatening and must be reconsidered with priority.

"How many more anonymous donors are we gonna be able to count on for the next patient who gets a match?" Heinz said.

 

[werepossum]

And your point is that if Democrats run government health care everything will be approved? M'kay . . .

 

[JSt0rm]

And your point is that if Democrats run government health care everything will be approved? M'kay . . .

Look at the "all or nothing" "black and white" simple mind. Let me entrust you with complex issues. :hmm:

 

[dca221]

And your point is that if Democrats run government health care everything will be approved? M'kay . . .

I have three questions:

1) what kind of heartless people are running Arizona?

2) where is Sarah Palin and Chuck Grassley to condemn the death panels in Arizona that are so obviously making life-and-death decisions?

3) wouldn't it be the right thing, the compassionate thing, the Christian thing, to help people in need? What is the harm in helping people? If the government does not lift a finger to protect the lives of its citizens, for what else does it exist?


And I guess you see nothing wrong with this because it is the republicans doing it: it is OK if you are a republican (IOKIYAR)

 

[Phokus]

Silly liberals, the sanctity of life only applies to fetuses.

 

[cubby1223]

Another troll thread! Yea!!!!

 

[Amused]

What I want to know is when the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" became the obligation of others to provide the means to support it?

The "life" part of that simply means you have the right to live and no one may take it from you. Not that the government is obligated to keep you alive by making the labor of others your entitlement. It is not an obligation to GIVE you life, only to not take it away. Your right to life, just like all other rights, ends when it infringes on the rights of others.

It simply amazes me how people think their rights are the obligations of everyone else around them to the detriment of other's rights. Your "right to life" does NOT mean you get to force others to maintain it. Period.

 

[Patranus]

What does the government have to do with him not being able to afford his surgery?

Shit is expensive. Should of have insurance.

 

[werepossum]

I have three questions:

1) what kind of heartless people are running Arizona?

2) where is Sarah Palin and Chuck Grassley to condemn the death panels in Arizona that are so obviously making life-and-death decisions?

3) wouldn't it be the right thing, the compassionate thing, the Christian thing, to help people in need? What is the harm in helping people? If the government does not lift a finger to protect the lives of its citizens, for what else does it exist?


And I guess you see nothing wrong with this because it is the republicans doing it: it is OK if you are a republican (IOKIYAR)

It's not whether or not I see anything wrong with this, but rather that this process is an inevitable part of life. Resources are never unlimited. At some point, decisions must be made to divert resources from very marginally productive investment to more productive investment. If you actually read the article, this program dropped this coverage because of the very poor results; patients who received these transplants tend to die anyway and usually get very little life extension for the cost. You can argue that government panels make better decisions that insurance company caps and limits, but this IS a government panel. Whether run by Democrats or Republicans, these decisions HAVE to be made if government controls health care. If government does not control health care, then these decisions have to be made elsewhere, with government as the final arbiter that the rules are followed, but either way these decisions have to be made. Health care, like everything desirable that costs time or treasure, is inherently rationed. That $1.5 million isn't returned to the people, it's spent by government on other things, but even if taxes are raised by that much and more, it merely means that someone else will be the one denied the potentially life-saving treatment he or she needs. Please note that this agency is already a billion dollars over its budget.

Some people are always going to die because they cannot get the treatment, diagnostics, or care they need to live. If society agreed to give government control over all spending, to limit all discretionary spending - no music, no books except text books, no computers except for government business, no private transportation, no traveling except for approved government needs, everyone living in cheap government housing with literally nothing that isn't absolutely necessary - then we could do a much better job of providing health care, but these decisions would still have to be made. At some point, someone has to say no, we aren't going to do X because we need those resources for Y and Z.

Your argument isn't with me, it's with reality.

 

[Balt]

Should of have insurance.

 

[Phokus]

What does the government have to do with him not being able to afford his surgery?

Shit is expensive. Should of have insurance.

Ah yes, the free market death panel

 

[keyed]

Reinstating the transplant benefits would cost the state about $1.5 million, according to AHCCCS.
Democratic state Rep. Matt Heinz, a physician at the Tucson Medical Center, said the transplant cuts are life-threatening and must be reconsidered with priority.

If you want to be cold-hearted about it, there's a major flaw in that statement; the cuts aren't life-threatening. The organ got used, just not by that person.

Life-threatening would be if organs went to waste because of the cuts. But didn't happen because there's a shortage of donated organs.

 

[Orignal Earl]

What does the government have to do with him not being able to afford his surgery?

Shit is expensive. Should of have insurance.

Living it large in my socialist paradise.

 

[dmcowen674]

What I want to know is when the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" became the obligation of others to provide the means to support it?

The "life" part of that simply means you have the right to live and no one may take it from you. Not that the government is obligated to keep you alive by making the labor of others your entitlement. It is not an obligation to GIVE you life, only to not take it away. Your right to life, just like all other rights, ends when it infringes on the rights of others.

It simply amazes me how people think their rights are the obligations of everyone else around them to the detriment of other's rights. Your "right to life" does NOT mean you get to force others to maintain it. Period.

It's called America. I know you don't like it so why the hell do you stay here?

 

[EagleKeeper]

If AZ did not have to spend so much $$ on illegals (responsibility of the Feds), their budgeting might be easier.

It is the voters that authorize the funds, the politicians that then spend them.

As another stated, the organ was used not wasted. A life may have been threatened, but one was also saved.

 

[Amused]

It's called America. I know you don't like it so why the hell do you stay here?

I seriously wonder how in the fuck you remember to breathe.

 

[theeedude]

Nice, more transplants for the rich

 

[MotF Bane]

Another troll thread! Yea!!!!

This.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

It's called America. I know you don't like it so why the hell do you stay here?

Why do you? Quit dodging and answer the question.

 

[Amused]

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Now, how can I have liberty if I am forced by law to provide the means for another person to extend their life?

The "life" part is NOT an obligation on others to provide the means to extend your life. Sorry. It is only a guarantee that the your life will not be taken from you.

 

[Throckmorton]

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Now, how can I have liberty if I am forced by law to provide the means for another person to extend their life?

The "life" part is NOT an obligation on others to provide the means to extend your life. Sorry. It is only a guarantee that the your life will not be taken from you.

You aren't free if you yourself can die for want of funding for a medical procedure that our society is capable of performing.

 

[werepossum]

You aren't free if you yourself can die for want of funding for a medical procedure that our society is capable of performing.

Here we have the basic reason the left and the right cannot come together. The right considers freedom to be a lack of outside coercion. The left considers freedom to be government meeting your basic needs. To the right, a tiger in the wild is free, a tiger in a zoo is not. To the left, it's the opposite - the tiger in the zoo has his every need met; he's secure, safe, free to be all the tiger he can be, even if he cannot go where he wants. Whereas the tiger in the wild is subject to dangers and privation; he cannot be free, because he is subject to hunger and injury. He cannot be free because he has no government to make him so.

We literally do not speak the same language anymore, even when the words are all English. How can we survive as a country? Perhaps the United States should break apart into fifty independent nations and let each determine its own meaning of freedom, its own level of socialism and capitalism. A country that cannot even agree on the definition of freedom can hardly guarantee it for its citizens. If we fracture, perhaps at least a few states can preserve freedom.

 

[CPA]

Jeebus, you libs complain when we don't have government insurance and you complain when we do.

 

[CPA]

Here we have the basic reason the left and the right cannot come together. The right considers freedom to be a lack of outside coercion. The left considers freedom to be government meeting your basic needs. To the right, a tiger in the wild is free, a tiger in a zoo is not. To the left, it's the opposite - the tiger in the zoo has his every need met; he's secure, safe, free to be all the tiger he can be, even if he cannot go where he wants. Whereas the tiger in the wild is subject to dangers and privation; he cannot be free, because he is subject to hunger and injury. He cannot be free because he has no government to make him so.

We literally do not speak the same language anymore, even when the words are all English. How can we survive as a country? Perhaps the United States should break apart into fifty independent nations and let each determine its own meaning of freedom, its own level of socialism and capitalism. A country that cannot even agree on the definition of freedom can hardly guarantee it for its citizens. If we fracture, perhaps at least a few states can preserve freedom.

You are spot on with your analogy.

 

[Darwin333]

You aren't free if you yourself can die for want of funding for a medical procedure that our society is capable of performing.

So they have the means to provide everyone who needs a transplant one just not the will or desire?

I don't like the story much (i damn sure bet the next person in line for the liver does though) but I kind of have to agree with werepossum, regarding transplants SOMEONE must be the so called "death panel". At least until we have clones which I am really hoping happens soon. I sure wouldn't mind a walking talking (and maybe grass cutting, house painting, dog crap picking up) "personal transplant storage device" of my own.