Jan Brewer's GOP death panel gets another kill

[theeedude]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_transplant_coverage_death;_ylt=AsvEQxc7GH3uU3sLoKKa4NFzfNdF

PHOENIX – A second person denied transplant coverage by Arizona under a state budget cut has died, with this death "most likely" resulting from the coverage reduction, a hospital spokeswoman said Wednesday.
University Medical Center spokeswoman Jo Marie Gellerman said the patient died Dec. 28 at another medical facility after earlier being removed from UMC's list for a liver transplant needed because of hepatitis C.
Gellerman cited medical privacy requirements in declining to release any information about the patient.
Arizona reduced Medicaid coverage for transplants on Oct. 1 under cuts included to help close a shortfall in the state budget enacted last spring.
Officials at the Tucson, Ariz., hospital said the patient's death "most likely" resulted from Arizona's scaling back coverage for transplants, she said.

Lazy bums are dying left and right, good times.

 

[Red Dawn]

Bet the patient had a Hispanic surname

 

[theeedude]

Previous kill's name was Mike Price, so Americans get to part take in the GOP's small government as well

 

[Craig234]

Scary stuff.

A patient needing care is little more than a line on the 'cost' part of the budget sheet to a corporation.

We're supposed to design programs in the people's interests; the corporate profit charters are largely in conflict with that goal in many cases.

The government is supposed to do better, representing the people.

But when the private, corporate interests who don't want the money going to the people are able to put their candidates in office, that doesn't work too well.

They pay PR firms and think tanks who sell the public on the bad policies - ironically making them afraid of the BETTER plans, to prevent their being passed.

It's a complicated issue, that marketing and cliches can cover up the issues.

Any time something like this happens, it can be explained away with generalizations like how much we spend and how we can't afford every medical treatment.

The profitable industries are in charge pretty much of the policies, the propaganda campaigns and public debate, and too often the government.

 

[Darwin333]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_transplant_coverage_death;_ylt=AsvEQxc7GH3uU3sLoKKa4NFzfNdF


Lazy bums are dying left and right, good times.

Don't something like 2/3rds of people on the list waiting for a liver not get them?

so to be just as fair as you, we could find the person that did get the liver and claim it a success of Arizona's "life panel"?

 

[Darwin333]

Scary stuff.

A patient needing care is little more than a line on the 'cost' part of the budget sheet to a corporation.

We're supposed to design programs in the people's interests; the corporate profit charters are largely in conflict with that goal in many cases.

The government is supposed to do better, representing the people.

But when the private, corporate interests who don't want the money going to the people are able to put their candidates in office, that doesn't work too well.

They pay PR firms and think tanks who sell the public on the bad policies - ironically making them afraid of the BETTER plans, to prevent their being passed.

It's a complicated issue, that marketing and cliches can cover up the issues.

Any time something like this happens, it can be explained away with generalizations like how much we spend and how we can't afford every medical treatment.

The profitable industries are in charge pretty much of the policies, the propaganda campaigns and public debate, and too often the government.

Wall o' text not really relevant in this case as we can not possibly give everyone that needs a liver transplant a liver. The demand outweighs the supply so unless you would like to volunteer your own liver to help the guy out someone has to decide on who gets it or not.

 

[Pantoot]

Wall o' text not really relevant in this case as we can not possibly give everyone that needs a liver transplant a liver. The demand outweighs the supply so unless you would like to volunteer your own liver to help the guy out someone has to decide on who gets it or not.

In the previous case, that's exactly what happened. Someone volunteered their liver but they couldn't afford the transplant operation. The state didn't pay for it because the guy had Hep C, not just because the GOP hates poor people.

 

[bfdd]

Scary stuff.

A patient needing care is little more than a line on the 'cost' part of the budget sheet to a corporation.

We're supposed to design programs in the people's interests; the corporate profit charters are largely in conflict with that goal in many cases.

The government is supposed to do better, representing the people.

But when the private, corporate interests who don't want the money going to the people are able to put their candidates in office, that doesn't work too well.

They pay PR firms and think tanks who sell the public on the bad policies - ironically making them afraid of the BETTER plans, to prevent their being passed.

It's a complicated issue, that marketing and cliches can cover up the issues.

Any time something like this happens, it can be explained away with generalizations like how much we spend and how we can't afford every medical treatment.

The profitable industries are in charge pretty much of the policies, the propaganda campaigns and public debate, and too often the government.

Everyone is little more than a "cost" line on a budget. Seriously I don't understand how so few of you can grasp this concept.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Liberals make it sound like increasing the budget increases the number of organs available. I wish my logic gave me such simple solutions.

 

[xj0hnx]

In the previous case, that's exactly what happened. Someone volunteered their liver but they couldn't afford the transplant operation. The state didn't pay for it because the guy had Hep C, not just because the GOP hates poor people.

Sometimes I wonder if progressives suffer from a reading disorder, the state wouldn't pay for a transplant to a guy with Hep C, so somehow this is Jan Brewer, and the GOP's fault ...amazing leaps they can make.

 

[bfdd]

Sometimes I wonder if progressives suffer from a reading disorder, the state wouldn't pay for a transplant to a guy with Hep C, so somehow this is Jan Brewer, and the GOP's fault ...amazing leaps they can make.

In most places doesn't having Hep C make you ineligible for the transplant list of certain organs? One would think the LIVER would top that list since Hep C tries to fry the goddamn thing.

 

[Vette73]

Liberals make it sound like increasing the budget increases the number of organs available. I wish my logic gave me such simple solutions.

Did you even read it or just want to drop out some words you heard on FoxNews today?


The person was not allowed to even be put on the list. Big diff. between dieing while waiting and not even having a chance.

 

[bfdd]

Did you even read it or just want to drop out some words you heard on FoxNews today?


The person was not allowed to even be put on the list. Big diff. between dieing while waiting and not even having a chance.

The guy had a virus that does irreparable damage to the liver. Why would he be at the top of a liver transplant list? Talk about wasteful spending lol.

 

[xj0hnx]

Did you even read it or just want to drop out some words you heard on FoxNews today?


The person was not allowed to even be put on the list. Big diff. between dieing while waiting and not even having a chance.

Did you even read it or just drop out some words you heard on MSNBC today?

The person was removed from the list because they have Hep C, not because they were brown, or poor, a liberal, or whatever other excuse you want to try to use to pin this on Brewer, or the GOP.

 

[theeedude]

Dude, learn to read. The person was on the list because they had Hep C. They got taken off because there was no money to pay for the transplant.

 

[Vette73]

Did you even read it or just drop out some words you heard on MSNBC today?

The person was removed from the list because they have Hep C, not because they were brown, or poor, a liberal, or whatever other excuse you want to try to use to pin this on Brewer, or the GOP.

Did you even open the link or just trolling for #1 idiot today?

FIRST sentance

"A second person denied transplant coverage by Arizona under a state budget cut has died, with this death "most likely" resulting from the coverage reduction, a hospital spokeswoman said Wednesday."

and...

"Officials at the Tucson, Ariz., hospital said the patient's death "most likely" resulted from Arizona's scaling back coverage for transplants, she said."

plus to answer bfdd

"The patient's worsening condition would have elevated his place on the list, she added."

 

[bfdd]

Dude, learn to read. The person was on the list because they had Hep C. They got taken off because there was no money to pay for the transplant.

Generally people with Hep C are on the bottom of the list for liver transplants. Why? Because the new liver will eventually be fried and they will need another anyways. If the choice is between two dying people, one who only needs THIS LIVER and one who potentially might need another, giving it to the person who only needs 1 makes sense. There are only so many resources in the world senseamp, not everyone will have equal access to them and not everyone deserves equal access to them. Rationing sucks, but until we can clone body parts, turn energy into matter or get off this blue rock we're kind of stuck rationing.

 

[bfdd]

Dude, learn to read. The person was on the list because they had Hep C. They got taken off because there was no money to pay for the transplant.

So what's the problem then? No money to pay for it, means it doesn't happen. That's how shit works.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Dude, learn to read. The person was on the list because they had Hep C. They got taken off because there was no money to pay for the transplant.

That's what happens when you don't have any coverage. It is unconfirmed as to whether or not this person was on Medicaid.

Besides, your argument is empty. If that liver was given to this person instead of the person who received it, that person may have died instead and you would be complaining about the same thing. And then this person's Hep C likely would have destroyed the liver anyway, wasting the transplant. That would be quite the lose-lose situation, now wouldn't it?

 

[Vette73]

Generally people with Hep C are on the bottom of the list for liver transplants. Why? Because the new liver will eventually be fried and they will need another anyways. If the choice is between two dying people, one who only needs THIS LIVER and one who potentially might need another, giving it to the person who only needs 1 makes sense. There are only so many resources in the world senseamp, not everyone will have equal access to them and not everyone deserves equal access to them. Rationing sucks, but until we can clone body parts, turn energy into matter or get off this blue rock we're kind of stuck rationing.

AGAIN why don;t you and xjohnx READ the article...

""The patient's worsening condition would have elevated his place on the list, she added.""

 

[bfdd]

AGAIN why don;t you and xjohnx READ the article...

""The patient's worsening condition would have elevated his place on the list, she added.""

But there was no money to pay for it, so what's the problem? I'm not getting the outrage here. I hate reading about shit like this and I wish everyone could have everything they want all the time, but that's fantasy not the real world we live in.

Even if the guy got the liver odds are within 15 years he would have needed another.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

AGAIN why don;t you and xjohnx READ the article...

""The patient's worsening condition would have elevated his place on the list, she added.""

And this person was taken off because they weren't covered. Coverage gets you healthcare. That's how it works. I don't want my tax dollars paying for a liver that gets fried by Hep C - do you?

 

[xj0hnx]

Generally people with Hep C are on the bottom of the list for liver transplants. Why? Because the new liver will eventually be fried and they will need another anyways. If the choice is between two dying people, one who only needs THIS LIVER and one who potentially might need another, giving it to the person who only needs 1 makes sense. There are only so many resources in the world senseamp, not everyone will have equal access to them and not everyone deserves equal access to them. Rationing sucks, but until we can clone body parts, turn energy into matter or get off this blue rock we're kind of stuck rationing.

http://www.hcvadvocate.org/hcsp/articles/Shaw-Stiffel-1.html

End-stage liver disease (cirrhosis) due to chronic hepatitis C viral (HCV) infection has become the leading indication for liver transplantation (LTx) in the United States. Unfortunately, LTx does not cure HCV, a common misconception. Instead, recurrent HCV infection of the new liver occurs in almost all instances and some form of liver damage is noted histologically (seen under the microscope in a liver biopsy specimen) in the vast majority of cases.
Furthermore, the natural history of recurrent HCV following LTx appears to be significantly accelerated compared to that in non-LTx cases. Rather than the 20% figure quoted for non-LTx cases who may develop cirrhosis after 20-30 years, anywhere from 10 to 30% of LTx recipients with recurrent HCV have advanced fibrosis (scarring) or full-blown cirrhosis within only 5 years. Another problem is that, once cirrhosis develops post-LTx, complications occur more rapidly than in non-LTx cases. If another LTx is required, the outcome is usually not as favorable and some liver transplant centers refuse to offer a second LTx on this account.

ZOMG!!11!!! Budget cutz GOP is killin' the brownz people!!!11!

 

[boomerang]

Under our new national health care plan, situations like this are going to become more and more common. A big part of the new plan is to shift costs to the states while also reducing Medicaid reimbursements. I don't recall any additional funding coming the way of the states to cover that additional costs, so...

Outrage? I guess. The new norm? Yes. Shuffling the burden and costs to another entity doesn't magically correct funding problems.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Hacp]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_transplant_coverage_death;_ylt=AsvEQxc7GH3uU3sLoKKa4NFzfNdF


Lazy bums are dying left and right, good times.

If you can't afford it, guess what? The taxpayers aren't going to pay for it. If you care so much about this one person, there is nothing stopping you from sending money to him or her to get the transplant done.