|
17 year old girl dies after insurance company denies claim (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| SuspicionVandit |
| doesn't Canadian healthcare give out free blowjobs if you are depressed? Sicko said it was perfect and damn near a Utopia |
|
|
| eROs.au |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fibonacci
Since when do hospitals not perform operations based upon if the insurance company will or will not pay, especially if life/death is on the line?
For the record, it's illegal for a hospital to turn away a patient based upon their ability to pay.
Why didn't they perform the surgery anyway? The debt is nothing compared to the girls life. Although I think Cigna was horrendous for not having their act together in giving a timely response, the surgery should have been performed anyway. |
I was thinking the same thing. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
You guys do realize that this girl had leukemia and that a bone marrow transplant had already failed? She was in a persistent vegetative state and all a liver transplant would have done would be to allow her to live longer, in a vegetative state, for up to an additional 6 months. The transplant wouldn't have cured her cancer and wouldn't have brought her out of a vegetative state. I don't mean to be callus, but livers aren't easy to come by for transplant and I'd rather the liver go to someone who could benefit from it long-term, rather than a family hoping to prolong their daughter's coma.
I'm not trying to say that the insurance company was right or wrong, but there is another side to the story. They saw; girl has been treated unsuccessfully for leukemia and is now in a persistent vegetative state and will die within the next few months. A liver transplant will do nothing more than prolong her life (again, in a vegetative state), cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and mean that someone who could benefit more from a liver transplant wouldn't get one because a terminal patient got it instead.
I feel for her family and their loss, but this is not simply a case of an insurance company giving a girl a death sentence because they didn't want to pay. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fibonacci
Since when do hospitals not perform operations based upon if the insurance company will or will not pay, especially if life/death is on the line?
For the record, it's illegal for a hospital to turn away a patient based upon their ability to pay. |
What you're talking about applies to emergency operations (i.e. when there is a risk of imminent death, as with a heart attack or stroke), not operations for long-term illness, as far as I know. |
|
|
| Yan |
| quote: | Originally posted by punjabi
Absolutely nothing will happen to Cigna. That's how healthcare works in America. |
|
|
|
| callme:gsmile: |
| Really i think every time an African child dies, Cigna should have their ass sued off. On further inspection they went against their own policy in an effort to show some sort of compassion even though they did not legally have to. I will defend Cigna to the grave because im found of that name :toothless |
|
|
| paranormal-real |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
You guys do realize that this girl had leukemia and that a bone marrow transplant had already failed? She was in a persistent vegetative state and all a liver transplant would have done would be to allow her to live longer, in a vegetative state, for up to an additional 6 months. The transplant wouldn't have cured her cancer and wouldn't have brought her out of a vegetative state. I don't mean to be callus, but livers aren't easy to come by for transplant and I'd rather the liver go to someone who could benefit from it long-term, rather than a family hoping to prolong their daughter's coma.
I'm not trying to say that the insurance company was right or wrong, but there is another side to the story. They saw; girl has been treated unsuccessfully for leukemia and is now in a persistent vegetative state and will die within the next few months. A liver transplant will do nothing more than prolong her life (again, in a vegetative state), cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and mean that someone who could benefit more from a liver transplant wouldn't get one because a terminal patient got it instead.
I feel for her family and their loss, but this is not simply a case of an insurance company giving a girl a death sentence because they didn't want to pay. |
Yes you are callous. I guess it would be because you are either a)a surgeon b)doctor c)insurance agent
The very same people who care little about a human's worth. |
|
|
| Yan |
| quote: | Originally posted by paranormal-real
Yes you are callous. I guess it would be because you are either a)a surgeon b)doctor c)insurance agent
The very same people who care little about a human's worth. |
Or... just an indifferent person?
Welcome to a nice chunk of the human population. |
|
|
| callme:gsmile: |
You didn't pay for the surgery either, i think you should be held negligent even though you have no legal obligation to do so. The rich should give away all their money because its the right thing to do. Lets all hold hands and listen to a Dj Sammy cover of Janis Joplin while wearing flowers in our hair imo.
People die and the world isn't fair. I'm suing God for creating disease. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by paranormal-real
Yes you are callous. I guess it would be because you are either a)a surgeon b)doctor c)insurance agent
The very same people who care little about a human's worth. |
Or I think that spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and using a very finite resource (a liver viable for transplant) in order to prolong a dying girls coma is ridiculous. Again, I feel for the family's loss, but this girl died of leukemia and a failed bone marrow transplant. A liver would not have "saved" her life, merely prolonged her death.
Until medicine has an unlimited amount of resources at its disposal, there will always be a degree of utilitarianism involved. This is not a feature of medicine unique to the US. |
|
|
| paranormal-real |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Or I think that spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and using a very finite resource (a liver viable for transplant) in order to prolong a dying girls coma is ridiculous. Again, I feel for the family's loss, but this girl died of leukemia and a failed bone marrow transplant. A liver would not have "saved" her life, merely prolonged her death.
Until medicine has an unlimited amount of resources at its disposal, there will always be a degree of utilitarianism involved. This is not a feature of medicine unique to the US. |
Your tone is a feature of medicine mostly based in the US. Ok, so if this girl was going to die because of leukemia and the failed bone marrow transplant then why did they go through the troubles of finding a liver and then even bothered to ask the insurance for permission? The staff were never interested in saving the girls life because they wanted to make sure they were first going to get payed for it. Then they would have performed surgery that could have possibly saved her life.
You are not certain that the girl would have stayed as a vegetable for the remained of her life. |
|
|
| Boomer187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
What you're talking about applies to emergency operations (i.e. when there is a risk of imminent death, as with a heart attack or stroke), not operations for long-term illness, as far as I know. |
It might be just emergency room visits. I went in with a dislocated pinkie and as long as i stayed there I could have surgery to repair and damage. but once i left the emergency room, I would have to go the insurance route. I had insurance, but at the time no proof of insurance, they preped a surgery room n everything for me.
also he is not callous, just realistic. unfortunately the real side of this event will not air as the news likes stories that appeal to emotion. now I just can't wait until insurance premiums jump up just so we can prolong these types of cases. |
|
|
|
|
