- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 30,790
- Reaction score
- 15,088
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Tucson University Medical Center has confirmed that a patient who was refused a liver transplant due to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s decision to cut the state benefit that would have made the transplant possible, has died. The patient had been scheduled for the needed transplant but was dropped from the waiting list on October 1st when the cuts went into effect.
Please allow the preceding paragraph to sink into your consciousness for a moment.
The Arizona budget that previously provided transplants to people in need was $1.4 million. As there were 99 people on the waiting list for transplants at the time the cuts went into effect, the net result is that the State of Arizona valued each of these lives at something less than $14,000 a person.
Today, there are only 97 on the waiting list as two have passed away.
*Arizona Death Panel Claims Another Victim* :***** Information Clearing House: ICH
Where was the charity we are told would assist people like this?
*Arizona Death Panel Claims Another Victim* :***** Information Clearing House: ICH
Where was the charity we are told would assist people like this?
I'm not bothered.
I oppose transplants - period.
What makes you think its the government's job to assist in transplants to begin with?
Why did this person need a new liver?
Did I say it was?
Notice how I asked where was the charity that conservatives so like to state will take care of the unfortunate, eliminating the need for governmental assistance. Given the conservative nature of Arizona I was suprised that millions of people did not donate to assist this person a fellow american could live.
NFT
Transplant Living: Organ Donation and Transplantation Information for Patients
Financial Assistance for Transplant Patients
Home
http://www.kidney.org/transplantation/livingdonors/pdf/FinancialResourcesLivingDonation.pdf
Transplant Support Organization
Financial assitance with Liver Transplant - Gastroenterology - MedHelp
Financial Matters: Liver Transplant Costs
That's just page one of a google search.
So the people of Arizona decided this persons life was not worth it
Got it,
So the people of Arizona decided this persons life was not worth it
Got it,
How much is each person's life worth? Give me a dollar figure.
To the person dieing quite alot.
Of course this is more about death panels then what a persons life is worth. Given the outrage of Obama's death panels by many conservatives, I had thought that a conservative state would not decide to let a person die over the cost of a liver transplant
That's not really useful though - I'm asking for a number.
I'm 100% pro-death panel, so I'm not really concerned with hoe AZ chooses to allocate their limited resources. I'm mostly just wondering where you would come down on the scale. You're attacking them for saying that they couldn't afford to spend this money - how much do you think they should be spending?
1 billion dollars
If the US governmengt is willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year to protect american lives, should not keeping americans alive to be defended be just as worthy a cause?
No, but I assume you knew that.
Yes of course
And this thread is not particularly meant for you, but those throwing the Death Panel term around, which I expect you knew that as well
You're criticizing AZ because they weren't willing to spend X dollars on medical procedures for people. I'm asking you for a realistic number of how much a reasonable state should be willing to spend.
Why do you oppose transplants?
The Arizona budget that previously provided transplants to people in need was $1.4 million. As there were 99 people on the waiting list for transplants at the time the cuts went into effect, the net result is that the State of Arizona valued each of these lives at something less than $14,000 a person.
Is that what I am doing?
Tucson University Medical Center has confirmed that a patient who was refused a liver transplant due to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s decision to cut the state benefit that would have made the transplant possible, has died. The patient had been scheduled for the needed transplant but was dropped from the waiting list on October 1st when the cuts went into effect.
Please allow the preceding paragraph to sink into your consciousness for a moment.
The Arizona budget that previously provided transplants to people in need was $1.4 million. As there were 99 people on the waiting list for transplants at the time the cuts went into effect, the net result is that the State of Arizona valued each of these lives at something less than $14,000 a person.
Or perhaps I am pointing out that Death Panels exist prior to Obama care. Something that I know will shock some posters. That the state decided this person was not worthy of having money spent on him, that each person in Arizona felt this person was not worthy spending money on. That rationing of health care exists in socialized healthcare and in private health care. The only difference is who decides what is to be rationed or not
To the person dieing quite alot.
Of course this is more about death panels then what a persons life is worth. Given the outrage of Obama's death panels by many conservatives, I had thought that a conservative state would not decide to let a person die over the cost of a liver transplant
To the person dieing quite alot.
Of course this is more about death panels then what a persons life is worth. Given the outrage of Obama's death panels by many conservatives, I had thought that a conservative state would not decide to let a person die over the cost of a liver transplant
The state did nothing but concern itself with state-issues.
The hospital itself who charges the state is at fault for letting a reduction in the budget interfere with their priority: saving lives.
You quoted this:
in your OP. I assumed that you were talking about the amount of money that AZ was spending on transplants.
I might just be pissing into the wind, but I think a large part of the objections to the concept of "death panels" is associated with the fact that many believe that the expansion of government insurance that some dems want would push private insurance out of the market, making the government's "death panels" a person's last resort for getting health care. That is very different from the current system, where people can obtain private insurance that would also cover the things in the OP. Accordingly, I think there's a pretty substantial distinction that is being glossed over.
So regardless of how far the state cuts its funding, the hospital should just keep performing these surgeries? That's a bit absurd.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?