- Joined
- Apr 3, 2009
- Messages
- 642
- Reaction score
- 414
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Workers who were involved in the response to the World Trade Center attack will not have their cancer treatments compensated under a program set up after September 11, according to a controversial decision released Tuesday by the World Trade Center Health Program.
There is inadequate "published scientific and medical findings" that a causal link exists between September 11 exposures and the occurrence of cancer in responders and survivors, program Administrator John Howard said in a statement.
Program won't cover 9/11 responders for cancer - CNN.com
Really? Of all the things that we should be able to spend money on...
Yeah, I saw that. Can't think of anything that would express my outrage adequately. They should have been rich, then we'd have more people standing up for them.
This is horrible. I can't believe the incompetence.
Not sure it is incompetence. I sadly think it is on purpose, meant to save dollars.
Like it would really cost that ****ing much in the grand scheme of things. Any money they would save is negligible. I don't know how anyone could have supported this.
meant to save dollars
Program won't cover 9/11 responders for cancer - CNN.com
Really? Of all the things that we should be able to spend money on...
There is also a casual link found between those people and their proximity to NYC.
Maybe we should set up a fund to cover all people, who get cancer, that have also spent time in NYC.
Well, I'm for covering everybody in the country so this wouldn't be a problem
For me it would depend on whether or not there were a reasonable correlation between 9/11 and the cancer.
You have to draw the line somewhere. Unless you can prove, that 9/11 caused cancer, and it was directly because of on the job events...
This is just emotionalism. We cannot afford to pay for everyone's healthcare, that's just reality.
just because they weren't at the right place and the right time.
At worse, it would not add up to effort to have any major effect.
And frankly, if structure (sic) correctly, we could afford everyone's health care much cheaper than we spend now.
pardon?
well, the current model sure aint working
did you know that, according to the asa's citation of the now world famous uva study, americans with NO HEALTH INSURANCE actually fare BETTER (shorter stays, lower costs, reduced mortality) than their less fortunate friends and fellows whose primary care status is MEDICAID, the ghetto of american health care
ASA: ASA 130th Annual Meeting Abstracts - Primary Payer Status Affects Mortality For Major Surgical Operations
that's, of course, AFTER controlling for age, gender, income, geographic region, operation, and 30 comorbid conditions
facts make formidable foes
There is also a casual link found between those people and their proximity to NYC.
Maybe we should set up a fund to cover all people, who get cancer, that have also spent time in NYC.
there's no where to go
From 2003-2007, 893,658 major surgical operations were evaluated using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database: lung resection, esophagectomy, colectomy, pancreatectomy, gastrectomy, abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, hip replacement, and coronary artery bypass. Patients were stratified by primary payer status: Medicare (n=491,829), Medicaid (n=40,259), Private Insurance (n=337,535), and Uninsured (n=24,035).
Importantly, after controlling for age, gender, income, geographic region, operation, and 30 comorbid conditions, Medicaid payer status was associated with the longest length of stay and highest total costs. In addition, Medicaid and Uninsured payer status independently conferred the highest adjusted risks of mortality.
there's always detroit
and the uninsured group experienced 15% lower mortality, after controls, than those stuck in the ghetto
link above
there's always detroit
and the uninsured group experienced 15% lower mortality, after controls, than those stuck in the ghetto
link above
And frankly, if structure (sic) correctly, we could afford everyone's health care much cheaper than we spend now. We are near the top in spending right now.
You have to draw the line somewhere. .
Compassionate conservatism at its finest.
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?