I can't believe this -- Medicaid is eliminating funding for organ transplants. "Go home and die."

[anneboleyn]

This was discussed on 60 Minutes tonight, as part of a general story about the states and the terrible cuts being made across the board -- devastating our public education, pensions for state workers, and healthcare for the poor, elderly, and disabled. As another poster noted, 60 Minutes didn't address the corruption -- the rich, as usual, getting tax cuts and avoiding penalties while the poor and middle-class suffer miserably as the states make "hard decisions" -- "hard decisions" that always impact the poor and middle-class, of course.

In Arizona (this started in November), Medicaid will no longer fund organ transplants in a large number of cases, considering transplants to be "elective surgery." Yes, *elective surgery.* A 36 y.o. father who needed a heart transplant due to a childhood illness was told he needed to raise his own funding for the procedure, as Medicaid would now no longer pay for his heart transplant. Sure, a Medicaid patient will be able to raise his own funding for a heart transplant! I have no doubt that other states will follow AZ's lead in this matter to help "reduce costs."

Now go home and die, all of you poor and disabled.

This is an automatic death sentence. How can this happen? And people aren't in the streets here, in our own country, over these devastating, literal life-and-death decisions being made by our state governments? It's just so depressing. I know our healthcare situation is just terrible, but this I find especially dismal. It is a clear, open, brutal attack directly on the poor and disabled, effectively informing them that if they are in need of an organ transplant, they are not worth the money and should just go home, shut up, and die. I can't believe what is happening -- healthcare is being destroyed for the poor. And the slashing silently continues.

[Lithos]

1. Just another GOP death panel...

Nothing new here...

L-

[anneboleyn]

3. Yes, literally, a death panel. They are effectively telling these patients to die.

In these cases the denial of care leads clearly to death; they can't even argue that treatment is "experimental" or "unproven to be effective" or the usual nonsense.

[Recursion]

36. No, they're just saying the state can't afford to pay for the transplant

Resources are finite. Any system is going to have to deny some therapies. This is a bad choice to make, but Medicaid is killing states' budgets.

[NotThisTime]

37. Arizona needs 5 million dollars for 98 patients denied, the Feds pick up the rest.. they have the

funds to pay for a damn museum but not to save these 98 lives? Please... cry me a river this is a GOP decision in a state that already has created national outcries.

[WestSeattle2]

87. Exactly! When they no longer use public funds to build sports

stadiums, museums, bridges to nowhere, etc., the cries of "we don't have the money" might begin to sound credible.

[blueamy66]

98. Amen.

The girls' basketball coach at my Catholic alma mater has 20% lung capacity....is fully disabled....told her 2 weeks ago.....SORRY, NO TRANSPLANT FUNDS.

I wish a slow, painful death upon Jan Brewer.

Hey, my tax dollars pay for her medical insurance....Shouldn't I have a say in any and all medical procedures that witch wishes to have done????

[Kablooie]

41. Yes. They say they can't afford to pay so go home and die.

[obxhead]

88. BS.

Excessive tax breaks to corporations, irrational expenditures, sports arenas, and excessive pay packages to a few top state employees is killing their budgets.

Go ahead and believe the corporate meme that the poor kill the budgets. You'll be believing a lie though.

[Creative]

71. No they are not. Unlike the fedgov, state governments can't print money.

[tblue37]

7. Dems, if they had any PR sense, would harp and harp and harp on that little point.

They let Sarah and her ilk define insurance-covered end-of-life personal consultation costs as "death panels," but they let real Republican death panels get by with nary a peep.

[bluestate10]

17. Exactly why democrats are in the position they are in.

When republicans F up, there is no partisan, shameless, knuckle dragging, sound bite savvy democrat going to every tv show that will have him or her pointing out how republicans F up. This dynamic must change and it must change fast. Jan Brewer and her crew are destroying Arizona. What do we hear about that? Not a peep from democrats.

[RegieRocker]

20. Time to start!

[Raksha]

47. That's exactly why I believe most Democrats in Congress are complicit...

because of what they DON'T say! Or if they say it at all, the don't say it loudly enough, aggressively enough or often enough.

[Recursion]

43. Dems should harp on the fact that state-run health provisioning results in death panels?

Thanks, I'll pass on that PR coup...

[indepat]

2. Survival of the fittest (wealthiest)

:shrug:

[anneboleyn]

4. I am truly horrified by how literal this has become. Be rich, or die.

[tblue37]

9. Yet when Alan Grayson pointed out that this was the Repuiblican

health care plan--"Don't get sick--and if you get sick, die"--people squawked as though he had stepped on someone's mother!

[undeterred]

24. Die quickly.

Because if you die slowly, you will exhaust your assets and deplete the system on your way out.

[saigon68]

12. More of that "Change we can Believe In"

[Recursion]

45. This is Medicaid. This is The Public Option.

This is how every single proposal for a public option worked: state administration to a certain quality of care backed by a lot of Federal funding. This is the problem with it. Without a dedicated revenue source, it runs out of money very quickly (even with one it does, but with a dedicated source it doesn't have to elbow out the rest of the budget.)

This is why politicians were nervous about it, because we already can't pay for Medicaid, and states are starting to do things like this to stay in the black.

There's no profit motive here to blame, except I suppose those greedy nephrologists who want to, you know, pay back the half million dollars in student loans they racked up.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

65. maybe we could pay for it IF we stopped the illegal wars

Its a matter of wanting to do it.

We have our empires to build, thats more important than sustaining our own people.

[Recursion]

70. That covers about half of it

The cost of the two wars is about 500 billion per year; that's roughly half of Medicare/Medicaid expenses, or about a quarter of the cost of medical procedures performed nationwide annually.

So, ending the wars is a good start, but it only gets us halfway to our current public medical expenses, or a quarter of the way to the total.

[MedicalAdmin]

72. Doesn't your figure assume that we end the wars but also keep the same force levels

What if we cut the military across the board by 50%. We'd still have a bigger force than all the world combined. How big is big enough.

[Recursion]

74. That would be another 300 billion or so

Though it would also have a depressive effect on the economy; lots of jobs like mine (the company I work for is a Navy contractor) would disappear.

[Matt Shapiro]

93. Expanded and improved Medicare for All is the answer, not a mere public option.

Universal single payer health care, covering everyone from cradle to grave funded by a payroll tax like the current Medicare tax would solve the problem. The total expended on medical care would be around the same as now (in the country, not merely by the government), but the insurance company profit of 30% would no longer be there (saving around $400 billion), the Pharmaceuticals would have to negotiate with the single payer, drastically cutting drug costs, and hospitals would have to adopt administrative efficiencies and be non-profit.

Of course, it would also be nice to take a few hundred billion from the Iraq & Afghanistan wars to actually reduce the payroll tax, but it's not absolutely necessary to accomplish the task.

The result would be truly affordable health care for everyone. It would not be free, but paid for by a payroll tax, which means that people would pay according to their means. If it were up to me, I would make the payroll tax graduated, instead of flat. Very low income families should not have to pay at all.

Problem solved. (Except for the political opposition of the insurance industry, big pharma, and the hospitals, which prevented any real solution this time around.)

[Recursion]

99. That would be a big tax

We spend 2 and a half trillion dollars a year just on health care costs (that's not insurance premiums; that's how much the treatments cost). Divide that up among the population and we're talking $500 per person per month. That's a lot.

[Matt Shapiro]

101. As you point out we are already paying this cost.

Calling it a tax does not make the cost any higher. Single payer just makes sure EVERYONE gets good health care and everyone pays at a rate related to their income. Yes, this country spends a great deal of money on health care. Taking out the 30% insurance companies "take" for their profit makes that bill lower, but certainly doesn't eliminate it. The real question is whether we want everyone to have good health care and whether we want a reasonable way to pay for it. Right now only those with means have enough money to get good health care, be it through insurance or direct payment. In my opinion, that is a travesty.

The word "tax" is no more scary than the word "cost."

[Recursion]

105. Well, that's 2 trillion for the people who are getting care currently

Add the 50 million currently uninsured people to that and we're talking about another 600-800 billion; that's three years of the war in Afghanistan per year. And it's not even clear that all communities have the provider capacity for this anyways.

[Newest Reality]

5. Another one of the flashing lights that

goes along with disturbing trends indicating that the human resources, (people) are falling in value as we speak. The value of non-wealthy, means-of-production units is depreciating quickly. Sell!

It is not hard to imagine that this is going to continue and increase to the point that we will see some less obvious method to the madness we assume.

Imagine rather quickly solving the problem of dwindling resources, climate impact and biosphere degradation, and then creating a virtual Utopia with what's left. Now, how would you do that? ;)

[anneboleyn]

6. My thoughts also. The poor who can no longer work will essentially be put to death.

If they are so unfortunate as to need any healthcare from the great protection of the "state."

[truedelphi]

8. In California,if you are on County paid insurance, you are treated

quite well if dealing with the normal day to day stuff. If you fall and break a bone, or come down with pneumonia, you will be given good care.

But if you should need to see a specialist, there is a typical nine month wait, as "Anthem" Blue Cross doesn't provide enough specialists for this program.

So if you need a neurologist, you might end up having the stroke the neurologist might have prevented, had you seen them in time.

Same situation in terms of seeing the heart specialist.

And all the while Anthem gets to pocket the monies the state legislature allows them to have.

[BlueIris]

11. Preach it!

It's disgusting, what private insurers are STILL getting away with.

[Recursion]

34. Umm... that's "county paid". You know, a "public option". (nt)

[jwirr]

16. Once again it is not medicaid that is doing this. There are not enough

doctors so we wait. This has been true for many years. Specialists are way over booked and way too busy.

[MedicalAdmin]

77. Gee. The rest of the world must never see specialists then, no?

Because while the USA has a ratio of 70% specialists to 30% GPs the rest of the world has the exact opposite ratio.

Gee, every other country must have death panels and roads pages with the bones of the poor.

[jwirr]

82. I have a severely disabled daughter and waiting is not new to our

time.

[MedicalAdmin]

94. So do you think that your waiting is a vote in favor of things?

Do we need more of the same? Or should we look at systems where your daughter would be given higher priority due to her condition rather than higher priority given to those with either excellent insurance or able to pay cash?

I'm notsure what you are saying. Status quo, or ...?

[jwirr]

100. The waiting room was absolutely full of children who needed care

as much or more than my daughter. I was willing to wait and did not see it as a bad thing because I was happy that everyone had care. I guess I see the problem as needing more doctors but that could be because I live in a rural area and not a big city with a lot of care facilities. More of the same - since my daughter has been on Medicaid since she was 8 months old we have had what most liberals want. We still waited - because of the lack of doctors. The only thing that will change the need to wait for specialists is more doctors.

[MedicalAdmin]

103. Yes, I think we agree on this.

In fact this is a conversation that happens among the affiliated network of doctors that I work for. To give you an idea my medical director is setting up a new residency program for the State. Colleagues of ours teach at universities and internationally as lecturers. So these are folks who are pretty good at medicine and also who think about how the entire system of medicine works.

Here's an important thing to think about. One reason that US specialists are so "busy", is that they are not used efficiently. There is no triage in the US beyond a good hard look at your bank account (and this is not something that you may see as a patient, but I guarentee that the practice and the insurance company know full well your financial situation and exactly how you will pay and how likely they will be to get reimbursed if it is insurance. That knowlede clouds every medical decision in the US in every practice where insurance is billed for the patient.

To add to that the inequalities that happen in the US because rural practices can't pay much (less patients means less efficient means higher overhead means less income etc.).

Consider for a moment that the average doctor doesn't work until about age 30, has no savings at that point and is looking at anywhere from $250,000 to $500,000 in debt (most of it is unsubsidized and so is at a higher percentage rate than government subsidized loans) before their first job. In civilized doctors, much of that training is subsidized as long as that doc / nurse / etc. signs a return service agreement. They can afford to charge less in those countries and they can afford to practice in rural locations if they so choose to. Here in the US most docs HAVE to work in metro areas. They have no choice. They have to take on too many patients or they get to starve.

The private insurance system is holding everyone hostage, from the docs to the patients. The system needs to be changed. Every other industrialized nation started with a fully private system and they all transposed to a fully public system (or a mixed system with strict regulation) If the 2nd and 3rd world, not to mention our allies can do it, then so can we.

Rant over.

Sorry about your daughter. If there is anything I can do to help just ask. If it is in my power to grant, I'll help.

[jillan]

10. It's going to get worse. They are going to cut even more from Medicaid. Reps won alot of Governor-

ships in November, and they could care less about the sick and disabled.

I have a daughter with disabilites, I can no longer take her to the doctor for well visits, and I am sitting on pins and needles waiting to hear what they are going to cut next. A few years ago she was hospitalized for 7 months. If that happened again, I'm certain they will not give her the same care she received in the past.

Just as long as the rich don't have to pay taxes, nobody cares about our stories.

[truedelphi]

28. It's not just about the Republicans though.

Obama included some five hundred billion dollars of money to be cut from MediCare programs - as he feels that doctors that do MediCare are being overpaid.

hells bells, I had elderly patients some fifteen years ago that couldn't find doctors who were willing to take on any new patients age 62 or above. And the reason cited was how much time their staff had to spend on claims, and how little the office actually received.

The situation is far worse now than fifteen years ago.


Neither party gives a rat's ass about the poor. And the recent tax cut bill only proves the point.

I do hope to see some truly progressive people run for office come 2012 on the Democratic ticket.

I will do anything possible to see:

Grayson/Feingold 2012!

[Dokkie]

13. Surprise Surprise

maybe we would have more money for the states if we didnt spend it all on endless wars and stupid naked scanners at the airport. Money doesnt grow on trees and theres a limited amount of it.

Guns and butter and you cant have it all

[Dokkie]

14. suprise

maybe we would have more money for the states if we didnt spend it all on endless wars and stupid naked scanners at the airport. Money doesnt grow on trees and theres a limited amount of it.

Guns and butter and you cant have it all

[jwirr]

15. It is happening in Arizona - that does not mean that Medicaid is doing

it. Each state administers their own Medicaid program and Arizona is instituting the death panel. The federal program is not doing this. Brewer in Arizona is.

[thelordofhell]

49. Thank you, the program in Arizona is called ACCHS

They are gutting all programs that benefit the poor, the elderly, the students in AZ because they need the money to give tax breaks to businesses in AZ.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[PSzymeczek]

60. AHCCCS

Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System - containing cost by denying health care.

[lonestarnot]

66. Always has been a death panel run by death panelers.

[thelordofhell]

67. Sorry, I'm a little fuzzy today.....it is AHCCCS

But it's still AHCCCSucks with republicans in charge

[Autumn]

18. The republican plan is fully accepted.

Hurry up and fucking die. How about that.:puke:

[WinkyDink]

19. The Right-Wing---hear this clearly---HATES AMERICA AND HER NON-WEALTHY CITIZENS. As Goldfinger

said to Bond, "I want you to DIE!"

I mean this literally and 100%.

[Crunchy Frog]

21. Flame me all you want...

but this is why I am not an organ donor. Not until organ allocation is based on need and medical criteria, rather than financial means.

[Gemini Cat]

22. Here's a link:

http://www.channel4.com/news/transplant-patients-in-the-us-told-to-pay-for-vital-organs

I'm glad the republican death panels are getting attention.
K&R

[robinlynne]

23. private insurers eliminated funding for transplants a long time ago, didn't they?

except for the premium ultra gold way too expensive for normal people insurance.....

in other words, I am not at all surprised.

[OHdem10]

25. Elections have consequences.

[undergroundpanther]

26. how many hearts

Did cheney the bigoted war criminal get until there was that pump thing installed? What GOOD has he done for ANYONE else? He is a criminal,a bully a piece of shit. WHY do we let him get away with life after all the monstrous crimes against humanity he has done or let happen, or colluded with?
WHY does he get help denied others so casually? What makes him better than anyone else? NOTHING, Cheney is a moral inferior to most human beings,he is a sociopath that does not deserve anything but to pay for the damages he causes and if it means he dies,oh well.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. cheney got zero hearts

I hate that war criminal, but seriously, stick to the facts.

[superduperfarleft]

38. Wait, are you counting transplants or the various hearts of virgins that he's eaten over the years?

[chill_wind]

27. k & R, Keuth Olbermann has agressively taken up this story also

and had a number of affected AZ residents and family members on his show.
He's been keeping it visible, aired the links and sites for the fund-raising efforts to help these families and reports a lot of money has been raised by viewers. Lives shouldn't have to depend on the efforts of a`few media personalities.

[Yo_Mama]

29. This is going to be the norm

A whole lot of states restrict coverage under Medicaid. Once a lot more people are on Medicaid, most states will be forced to such measures.

And it is not blue or red state based. Oregon, for example, doesn't provide any treatment other than palliative for patients without a 5% 5 year survival expectation. So a lot of conditions don't get treated.

All public health care systems ration treatment to some extent. Medicare will be rationed within five years. That's in the new bill.

[Vinca]

31. As someone else noted, Olbermann has been covering this.

It's absolutely heartbreaking. One man was in the hospital being prepped for a new liver when the ax fell. No surgery for you. It's a death penalty for being poor and ill. (But as long as Rupert Murdoch gets his taxes cut, all is right with the world.)

[kskiska]

32. South Carolina is threatening to eliminate Medicaid payments to doctors

I was diagnosed with diabetes last summer and require monthly doctor visits paid by Medicare, with Medicaid picking up the balance. If this is enacted in March, people like myself would be forced to go to emergency rooms, which will hound patients for payment for the rest of their lives. I have an elderly friend who couldn't pay the ER and he's being harassed by calls from collection agencies.

[TBF]

33. How can this happen? Ask your "progressive" president - I'm told here

on DU that Mr. Obama is "progressive" and the freaks on DU just don't understand his chess games. You mean you'd actually like to live? Sorry, that's too expensive when there are wars to be fought.

[LynneSin]

57. Except this is Arizona and Governor Jan Brewer who is making the cuts

:eyes:

[Recursion]

35. Remind me why a public option was worth freaking out about?

That's what Medicaid is, right, a public option for the poor?

[ItNerd4life]

48. You will not receive an answer, because Republicans called it.

And in many people's eyes, if a Republican says it, it must NOT be true.

There are much better solutions instead of government run, but neither Democrats or Republicans are listening. They are too caught
up in their own self righteousness.

[blindpig]

102. 'much better options'? Tell me about that.

Will your 'much better options' provide adequate health care for all?

I'm all ears....

[elehhhhna]

39. Repub Governors establishing DEATH PANELS to implement the FINAL SOLUTION.

Is ANYBODY surprised by this?

[MadMaddie]

40. I agree with everything that you have stated

This is going to rub some people the wrong way and it is not intended to. We do have to talk about things that make us uncomfortable.

There is something that we all should think about. I have a Senior Nurse friend who sees a lot of patients have transplants and extremely criticial type surgerys. For the 75% those patients deserve to get their transplants, most were living healthy lives and were stricken or they were born with defects and moved into critical stages.

There is the other 25% though

We live in a country where we cherish freedoms and legal or illegal many Americans choose to drink or drug their lives and bodies into horrible shape. These drug and alcohol users who have knowingly damaged their body (whether they were mentally stable or not), these people are receiving transplants and highly costly treatments on public assistance/state funds.

One other issue many of these alcohol/drug users return to their bad habits.

If these particular patients were not allowed to have transplants or costly procedures that would allow more deserving patients to recieve transplants.

I am not talking about cost but of course it is part of the conversation.

Your thoughts?

[eilen]

42. I don't think that is a good road to follow

in respect to determining if an individual "deserves" healthcare. If we did that almost no one would.

All humans should have access to healthy food, shelter, and healthcare as basic rights.

As a healthcare professional, my job is not to judge a person's worth, it is my job to provide therapeutic care, teach, assess.

[Desertrose]

44. I agree 100%ellen. Well said.

Who are we to judge who *deserves* healthcare.

All humans should have access to healthy food, shelter, and healthcare as basic rights!!

[Recursion]

46. You have one liver and two matching patients

Do you flip a coin? Transplants are where "values" judgments have to happen in medicine.

[eilen]

83. Well, if you have one liver, those are two lucky patients

because livers can be split!

http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/reporter/index.html?ID=7027

From: Liver Transplants: How Do We Choose Who Should Live When Not All Can?
http://www.cbhd.org/content/liver-transplants-how-do-we-choose-who-should-live-when-not-all-can

"The problem of subjectivity in the assessment of illness severity seems to have been solved. Medical need can be determined by an evidence-based score, an objective marker of severity. The score, the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (or MELD), is calculated from parameters indicative of liver function (serum creatinine, INR, and bilirubin). The goal of MELD is to provide an objective, medical-benefit standard in order to allocate livers justly. Studies have documented the score’s utility; it identifies those persons who most need a liver. The strategic endpoint of MELD scoring is to identify for transplantation patients who will die within three months rather than those who have been on the waiting list the longest. “First come” should not always be “first served” in the context of liver transplantation, because people on the list the longest are not always the sickest.

Although not perfect, MELD is probably the most objective measure available to prioritize recipients based on need."
...
The Institute of Medicine has made two recommendations that should affect the contemporary allocation question as it works toward the goal of fairness. Regarding criteria for selection, they caution that an objective score of illness severity, such as MELD, be applied to everyone. Concerning geographic disparity, they strongly suggest that OPOs should serve a population base of 9 million people. Geography should not be the issue; rather, there seems to be an optimal population size that would serve as a better criterion. Data has demonstrated that a census of 9 million would speed transplantation for sicker individuals, without adversely affecting the “less sick” when they later desperately need a transplant.

Liver transplant recipients from February 28, 2002, through March 30, 2003 (4,798 individuals) were stratified by MELD scores.4 Comparing smaller to larger OPOs revealed disturbing results. The proportion of patients receiving liver transplants with a “higher” MELD score (i.e., “sicker”) was lower for the smaller (n=43) than for the larger (n=400) OPOs (19% versus 49%). The bottom line is the numbers demonstrated that recipients in smaller OPOs received organs although they were not in as great a need as individuals in larger OPOs. Despite the availability of the MELD score, sicker individuals were not transplanted because organs were not shared adequately.

The solution—standardizing the OPO populations served at 9 million—should be the next step. Are there ethical downsides to a gerrymander of OPO size? Smaller transplant centers may have to close. This is not a prohibitive price to pay when lives are at stake. Another concern, that patients in smaller OPOs may have to travel farther to get care, may have some merit. However, travel issues are easier to address than the present geographically based disparity."

These criteria focuses on who needs the transplant more, not who "deserves" it more.

[Recursion]

85. Geez... that will teach me to do armchair hepatology...

These criteria focuses on who needs the transplant more, not who "deserves" it more.

And if one was using cocaine, that wouldn't have any impact on the decision?

[eilen]

90. Generally criteria for transplant

does preclude a person who is currently using cocaine. But it does not exclude people who have done cocaine but are not using now.

One patient I had who was going through induction from stem cell transplant for leukemia continued to smoke throughout his therapy. He smoked cigarettes as well as pot. That did not prevent him from getting the transplant. The doctors did sit him down though when he was caught smoking crack in the bathroom. They told him he could not do that and get the transplant. However, after the transplant, I am sure he picked the pipe back up again. Getting a new liver does not stop people who had cirrhotic livers from drinking alcohol again. People with lung cancer getting chemotherapy often continue to smoke. Many heart patients who receive multiple bypasses, stents and angioplasties continue to eat salty trans-fat filled food, smoke and drink. They do not adhere to an exercise program and try to lose weight. Even when heart attack patients are advised they can decrease the risk of another heart attack by 40% by quitting smoking-- they don't quit. Some do. A few do. But I would say it is not the majority from the sample I have seen.

No one would ever consider refusing care to a heart patient (particularly here in TN where the gravy runs thick).

In health care we have to work with people where they are. Not where the ideal is. When making goals for a healthy society, the key is to make the healthy choices the default, make that the easier choice. Most people in general will go to the path of least resistance, the most convenient, the least expensive, the less effort. Try preaching healthy living habits to people who live in the inner city with no supermarket, fresh food stand but plenty of $1 meals at fast food joints and corner stores that sell alcohol and cigarettes available down the block.

[MadMaddie]

104. Again, this topic was brought up for discussion

I agree your job is to provide the best healthcare to anyone who walks through the door.

[thelordofhell]

50. Drug addicts and alcoholics are the lowest on the transplant list

They are almost always bumped down or even rejected for the transplant list, unless you're rich or famous.

[atreides1]

62. That's not true

David Crosby:
David was the recipient of a highly publicized liver transplant in 1995. News of his transplant created some controversy because of his celebrity and his past issues with drug and alcohol addiction.

Mickey Mantle:
Mantle received a liver transplant at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, on June 8, 1995. His liver was severely damaged by alcohol-induced cirrhosis, as well as hepatitis C. Prior to the operation doctors also discovered he had inoperable liver cancer known as an undifferentiated hepatocellular carcinoma, further facilitating the need for a transplant.

Larry Hagman:
In August 1995, Hagman underwent a life-saving liver transplant after admitting he had been a heavy drinker. Numerous reports state he was drinking four bottles of champagne a day on the set of Dallas.

Only poor drug addicts and alcoholics are the lowest on the transplant lists.

[thelordofhell]

68. I did say unless you're rich or famous

[pitohui]

78. there are only so many livers

our local newspaper, times/picayune or nola.com (new orleans) chose to focus on the "young father" with hep c who was denied a new liver but it was the same story from arizona, nobody in louisiana ever gets free organs, i mean, c'mon, why am i supposed to care that someone in a distant place doesn't get the benefits that NO ONE i know has ever, ever, EVER been able to get?

no explanation of how arizona guy got hep c or why, if he got a new liver, the new liver would somehow magically not get infected w. hep c

i'm thinking if there are limited livers out there for transplant, then we need to put people first in line who don't have conditions that degrade the new liver

don't blame medicaid if medicaid is not the real reason dude didn't get the liver

this ain't theoretical w. me one of my close friends died in her 40s of hep c, her husband had a job/insurance, i have no reason to believe that a new liver would have done anything except give her a few extra months (maybe) while denying someone else who could have lived for years the use of the liver

if i'm wrong, yell at me, i'm trying to learn

[Recursion]

79. There simply aren't enough car accidents...

...it's unethical and time consuming to go about causing them...

(Linking the Monty Python script in case somebody thought I was serious: http://www.montypython.net/scripts/elephant.php )

[pitohui]

81. yeah i thought of that too

glad i'm not the only tacky person

we were told the "arizona father" somehow by fantastic coincidence "a friend's wife" was killed in an accident and her liver became available for free and that the only reason the surgeon didn't operate is he wanted $500K in advance

i just don't think the story is true, what are the odds your thirtysomething friend is killed "just in time" to provide you w. a new liver and it's compatible w. you

we're having our emotions played upon

sure medicaid stinks but it stinks even more not to have any medicaid

and as for so-called surgeons who would refuse to save a life even if the most expensive cost (the liver) was free...nope, i'm gonna need proof of that

seems the story is morphed, now it ain't a liver, it's a heart? m-may, maybe the whole story is just an invention to crap on obama to begin with is my guess...

[Recursion]

84. Possibly. But I'm convinced states' and doctors' experience with Medicaid killed the PO

Not insurance companies (they'd love to have a universal Medicaid to dump sick customers into); Medicaid is somehow managing to drive both doctors and states bankrupt, and at the risk of being a broken record, any public option that did not have a dedicated and universal revenue source was doomed to suffer the same problems Medicaid does.

[geardaddy]

51. That sucks...

Renal transplants are covered under Medicare (as is any other End-Stage Renal Disease) regardless of age or income. So, kidney patients are covered, for now.

[burnsei sensei]

52. I can.

It's called medicine for profit.
Those who can afford to get well and live will do so.
Those who cannot will be killed (albeit as humanely as possible) by the system as it exists.
Thank you AHIP.
Thank you Karen Ignagni.
Thank you Max Baucus.
Thank you President Obama.
All of these actors have facilitated this crime against HUMANITY.

[CLANG]

53. Sounds like an Arizona Death Panel to me!

[SnakeEyes]

55. It's also their "public option"

Think about it for a second...

[Recursion]

59. The cognitive dissonance is disturbing sometimes

"Public option is awesome and will solve all of our problems!"

"Medicaid sucks!"

Somehow the same mind holds these two thoughts at once.

[undergroundpanther]

89. medicaid

is better than nothing,but it's got alot of red tape and very few doctors accept it because the reinbursements are so low. The doctors that do accept medicaid sometimes have professional issues, like being kicked from a hospital practice,criminal activity,or had issues with ex patients.A few however are amazing,my spine doc,and my endro come to mind.

[Freddie Stubbs]

54. The new Health Care Reform law will add millions of people to medicaid rolls

[Recursion]

58. Right; this is that public option so many here clamor for

Only it's limited enrollment based on income. And it doesn't seem to be working all that well in a lot of states.

[pitohui]

80. "public option" for poor people only doesn't work, "public option" has to include everyone

social security is the most successful public program of all time, why, because the rich and upper middle class-- those with power to buy the votes -- ALSO benefit

our public schools were once the best in the world, not so much now that we've allowed the rich & upper middle class to abandon them

if you want public option for health to succeed, you HAVE to require that all participate

i don't have a problem w. a rich person getting a face lift on their own dime or whatever but for true rock bottom health, we need to ALL be in the same bucket -- we CANNOT allow the rich to opt out, any more than we can allow them to opt out of social security -- EVERYONE has to have skin in the game

if "public option" is just code for "welfare," it can't succeed in america, because even poor people hate poor people-- "public option" needs to be on the costa rican model say where, if you wanna work as a doctor FINE but some percentage of your business MUST go toward treating the public (all members of the public, not just the centurion card holders)

[Recursion]

86. If it includes everyone it's not an "option", it's universal Medicare

And I think universal Medicare is more or less a good idea, just not remotely within reach.

if you want public option for health to succeed, you HAVE to require that all participate

How is that a "public option"?

[librechik]

56. it's the new regime, following the paradigm designed by the Catfood Commission

It's coming no matter who you vote for or who is in charge or how many suffer and die. Because government doesn't serve the people anymore, they serve the wealthy and powerful.

[Lorien]

63. That's pretty much it. "Death panals" also come in the form of zero price controls

on prescription medications. A friend of mine who is struggling to stay afloat has a son in college (on scholarships). my friend wrote last night "they told him (the son) that he had exceeded the insurance cap which made them $25 a month and that would be $686.00 please ---- per month, no bio-equivalent generic, so that he doesn't ulcerate and bleed internally -- wonderful." So how is a college student with out of work parents supposed to come up with $686.00 on a moments notice? And every month?? We give 9 Trillion to bail out Wall Street banksters, yet nothing to help HARD WORKING Americans SURVIVE??? How is this acceptable to ANYONE??

[bvar22]

61. Don't Worry...The Democrats will stop this!!!!

!!!

[AtLiberty]

64. Many insurance companies wouldn't cover organ transplants, either

Many insurance companies pretty much say: go into debt for the rest of your life or die.

[w4rma]

69. Which gives more organs to the wealthy, since it knocks out the poor from being on the list. (nt)

[rox63]

73. This subject will be discussed on the NPR program On Point tomorrow

Here: http://www.onpointradio.org/2010/12/arizonas-death-panel

[NashVegas]

75. When Did Organ Transplants Become a Right?

Or part of basic medical care, for that matter.

[eilen]

91. Organ transplants are not a remarkable medical novelty

they are standards of care for particular medical problems.

[CLANG]

95. We're way past the Jarvik Artificial Heart stage.

[sirthomas66]

76. This is just the beginning. All social programs will be cut and

soon a good percentage of the population will be destitute. And this will be the Republicans and the Democrats, aided and abetted by Obama.

[old mark]

96. Sad but true - we are going back to the 1890's, and only the rich will benefit..

and the politically connected, of course.

mark

[sirthomas66]

97. Except for one thing. We have the power to resist. And that's what

will happen. It is already beginning.

[quaker bill]

92. Only the leading edge

Republican conservatives believe that no one should be taxed to pay for someone else's medical problems. Your healthcare is your responsibility goes the line they frequently use.

Fortunately for them, we live in an age where most infectious diseases have been controlled. Back in the day, your illness quickly became your neighbor's problem bringing on epidemics and mass fatalities. Back then, your health was my business, because your disease could kill my children. I would have had an uncle but for such an epidemic in the 1930s.

Today we live pretty well protected, tuberculosis, cholera, the plague, and scarlet fever do not have the run of our streets. This is in part due to antibiotics but more so due to a health system that treats you whether you can pay or not, at taxpayer expense if necessary. A good public health system is quite a bargain when the real alternative is considered.