I have a tendency towards the Democratic platform, but Edwards is WAY off base on this one. The Cigna representative was right: no one would have paid for this procedure, let alone a government agency. And that is totally ignoring the issue (as brought up by several commenters) that livers are in short supply and giving one to this woman with such a small probability of success and denying it to someone else with a much higher probability of success is of itself an ethical morass. Finally, if there is any group at fault here, it is the gang of cowboy surgeons at UCLA who would even think of offering a liver transplant to a woman who is status-post bone marrow transplant and in the throes of graft-vs-host disease. It boggles the mind….
Comment by Dan - January 7, 2008 at 10:52 am
We already have government-mandated health care, and it looks like NBC’s “ER.” My top-of-the-line insurance company recently had me wait for a scan at Sacramento’s largest teaching hospital, unfortunately on a Friday afternoon. 14 hours of kidney-stone agony was my contribution for social justice, I suppose. “Those rich people always get seen first” the lady behind me said, shortly before she was seen first, as was every gangbanger with a knife cut or a through-and-through (their social network seems to consist of only lousy shots). I was faint from pain, and my wife could only hold my hand as we endured shouted one-upsmanships (”My boys, this is their second gunshot in two weeks. And that cop said it was Seesee, but we saw Chipper do it”). A university-educated first-generation immigrant who operates two dry cleaning stores waited two hours for attention to his chest pains, after which his family, bespectacled brainiacs all, arrived and took him elsewhere. This memorable entertainment costs me only seven thousand a year. My premiums have quadrupled in a less than a decade—where is the money going?
Comment by Tom Bright - January 7, 2008 at 10:58 am
This is further proof that Edwards will stoop to any means to advance his agenda. He does not care about the truth of an issue. He rails against special interest. Ok let’s see if he will take on the biggest of the all; his fellow trial lawyers. Doubt it.
Comment by Jim Larkin - January 7, 2008 at 11:01 am
“Edwards advocates a government-run health plan open to all Americans, rather than the current system in which insurers decide on patient eligibility.”
Implicit in his posturing, a government system would have provided payment for this and all other experimental procedures.
Thus, the public is being sold a false promise. No government based plan anywhere in the world lives up to such a grandiose promise.
Framing the discussion with an imperfect present system compared with a perfect future is populist demagoguery at its worst.
Comment by Gibson - January 7, 2008 at 11:03 am
This is certainly a case of politicizing the illness of a very unfortunate teenager. One can only appreciate the sorrow her parents must feel.
The case certainly highlights the great connundrum of our time. As medical advances are made and people’s expectations rise there is no end to what can be done. There is, however, little debate or education of the public concerning what is reasonable.
As a society we have, even after 30+ years not learned to live within our means when it comes to healthcare. As illustrated by some of the physician comments above, the profession is in many ways an enabler of excessive expectation.
In a Nation which has assumed huge deficits through consumption (not investment in infrastructure), and which continues to offshore manufacturing, who will pay for every desired procedure?
There should be debate surrounding John Edward’s “Patient Bill of Rights.” I’ve not seen it but would it guarantee liver transplants to any and all unfortunate individuals who may or may not benefit from such a procedure?
John is very good at legal and political rhetoric. One has to give him that. But is it good for The Republic? Would he agree to a malpractice solution which awards compensation based on a review by a compensation board rather than a tort court? Will John Edwards work to reform an legal system which is a very large industry that does not create but rather redistributes wealth?
Comment by Eric W. Lewis, MD - January 7, 2008 at 11:09 am |
