I'm speechless. I can't imagine this: British treatment of premature birth

[justamouse]

Thank you for your comments and advice regarding our medical coverage. My husband happens to actually WORK for an insurance company, The Hartford. Yeah...we know there are other plans. But unfortunately, his division is limited to a choice of two. And neither are anything to write home about. I do happen to believe that we shouldn't have to make a choice between groceries and health care.

 

astrid

 

 

 

LOLOL... the irony of what was said to you and your answer is fantastic. Not for you, I know, but people just love to assume, you know?

 

And, as an employer, some companies can't afford to carry two plans, they get better prices for one. Or, should we just drop insurance?

[muffinmom]

I agree that changes need to be made to the system, to insurance abuses, to keep costs kept down, etc., but I don't agree that a govt.-run health care will be better. Oh, it might be free to some people (other people will be paying the bill), but I can assure you that if you're not paying for it, you will have no right to complain, to control your treatments, etc. You may have some general choices, but if we have systems like the rest of the world that we covet so much, then I guess we'll all have to get over the frustration of not getting the treatment we need when we need it. My dear friend in England has diabetes, but still the system was in no hurry for what she needed. She waited 2+ years for eye surgery...now she is blind. She wasn't treated soon enough for circulation problems...she has now had both legs amputated. Either they don't care enough, or there aren't enough doctors to go around, or they didn't deem her situation urgent enough. And she had zero control to move it along. Zero. She was completely at their mercy.

 

One nice thing about being the consumer is that you have some power and control...more perhaps than we realize. But if it's given to you for free, well...you get what you pay for.

[PineFarmMom]

Keeping this barely-living fetus alive just so he could live a probably short and painful life is what sounds inhumane.

 

 

comfort measures should, of course, have been offered, but as for using heroic measures? no.

 

Honestly, this boils down to world view. MY God can do miracles. MY God has the ability to take that 1% chance and make it a viable, worthwhile, healthy life. It really doesn't matter what statistics are because God won't be bothered with statistics. The doctors in that hospital are not God and have no right to play God. It's ridiculous & evil what was done to that baby and that mother.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I agree that changes need to be made to the system, to insurance abuses, to keep costs kept down, etc., but I don't agree that a govt.-run health care will be better. Oh, it might be free to some people (other people will be paying the bill), but I can assure you that if you're not paying for it, you will have no right to complain, to control your treatments, etc. You may have some general choices, but if we have systems like the rest of the world that we covet so much, then I guess we'll all have to get over the frustration of not getting the treatment we need when we need it. My dear friend in England has diabetes, but still the system was in no hurry for what she needed. She waited 2+ years for eye surgery...now she is blind. She wasn't treated soon enough for circulation problems...she has now had both legs amputated. Either they don't care enough, or there aren't enough doctors to go around, or they didn't deem her situation urgent enough. And she had zero control to move it along. Zero. She was completely at their mercy.

 

One nice thing about being the consumer is that you have some power and control...more perhaps than we realize. But if it's given to you for free, well...you get what you pay for.

 

I disagree since we have already heard from many posters here who universal health care and they are quite happy.

 

I am sorry for your friend but IMHO, I am unsure that you or your friend have all of the facts. I am a nurse and I know that diabetes can be very hard to treat for some people even with the best care. I have taken care of many diabetics who has lost their limbs, eyesight, kidneys, etc. since as one doctor put it, diabetes is like a metabolic cancer. :grouphug: For any one who has to deal with diabetes. Fortunately, in many persons, diabetes can be managed well, but for others their diabetes is just too brittle despite good care. In regards to the eye surgery, I could be wrong, but I am unaware of eye surgery that can correct diabetic eye problems:sad:

 

 

In regards to choice and waiting times, insurance companies already limit choice. Millions of Americans do not have a choice in health care insurance, doctors, etc. Plus, if you are uninsured, your choices are even more limited and it could even be a death sentence in some cases.

 

All I know is that something has to be done. We cannot stand by and let our fellow Americans suffer and go bankrupt over lack of health care.

 

My 2 cents:)

[elizabeth]

I absolutely understand your position regarding worldview. However, public policy in a less than perfect world means that using all available scientific information and research that shows fairly clearly that life cannot be sustained makes it also wrong to spend a great deal of money and effort that will yield no different result in outcome . Especially when the same dollars can be used to actually bring about healing and a viable outcome when utilized in a situation that is not scientifically futile. Not to speak of the fact that this is not a theocracy and individual belief systems regarding miracles cannot be the basis of public policy or science. It is absolutely your right to see and live according to your worldview but that does not make for sound public policy in a government based on the concept that there are many, many people who share dissimilar ideas regarding morality, theology and our purpose on the planet.

[Carol in Cal.]

My son was born premature in 2001. He was ~ 34 weeks. It was touch and go on whether he would make it, then whether he would ever be able to breath on his own.

 

 

The quote above (from the original link) upsets me greatly.

 

If her doctors HAD attempted to save his life, there is never any way of knowing that he "could have been saved," as she is quoted as saying. The majority of premature babies born at that stage do NOT survive. Just because some have lived does not mean that ALL will.

 

Ask any NICU doctor or nurse and they will tell you openly that studies show white males have the lowest survival rate for preemies. White females have the highest rate of survival. Every other race/gender mix lies somewhere between the two extremes. It is wonderful that Heather's nieces survived. The link re: kangaroo care also focuses on a girl. But - honestly - premature boys (the focus of this article) have a very low survival rate. So for the mother to say that he "could have been saved" is truly speculation.

Survival also depends on the hospital. Some hospitals are equipped for premature births, others are not.

The reason for the premature birth also plays into the survival rate. The neonatologists we dealt with said that babies that undergo a great deal of stress prior to their premature birth have a higher survival rate, as something in their body kicks in and speeds up lung development. If the mother has several weeks or months of premature labor than that aids the baby. Sudden premature labor does not.

Premature twins generally do better (we were told - and have witnessed with friends) than premature singletons. Again, the added stress of the pregnancy is thought to speed up lung development.

 

As we were told, every single premature baby is different. Just because one makes it does not mean that another born the same size/same gestation will make it.

 

It's true that the baby may or may not have made it. So perhaps it's going too far to say that he would have made it.

 

But, he never had a chance. The doctors didn't even try. That is what upsets me most. How can ANYONE not have compassion on a human being? How can ANYONE not try to save a life? He might not have made it. That much is true. But how could a medical doctor fail to try to help him make it????

[Haiku]

My dear friend in England has diabetes, but still the system was in no hurry for what she needed. She waited 2+ years for eye surgery...now she is blind. She wasn't treated soon enough for circulation problems...she has now had both legs amputated.

 

I feel like a broken record, but these things happen in the United States, too!

 

I know that there are people who persist in believing that people are never turned away in this country due to lack of ability to pay, or that health insurance companies never deny treatments, but it happens in the United States.

 

There will always be worst-case scenarios for universal health care AND profit-driven health care, but what we have to look at is where the greater benefit is. Given that there will be horror stories no matter what kind of health care there is, I opt for the choice that guarantees people coverage. I know people all across Canada and Europe and I have lived in Europe. I have never personally run across a situation in a country with universal healthcare where someone was denied treatment or forced to wait unreasonable amounts of time. I know dozens of people here in the States (my family included) who are getting screwed by their for-profit health insurance companies.

 

Tara

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Honestly, this boils down to world view. MY God can do miracles. MY God has the ability to take that 1% chance and make it a viable, worthwhile, healthy life. It really doesn't matter what statistics are because God won't be bothered with statistics. The doctors in that hospital are not God and have no right to play God. It's ridiculous & evil what was done to that baby and that mother.

 

No, the doctor's are not God, but they are trained in medicine and are in the best position to know whether care is futile or not. Doctor's are trained to save lives and would not with hold medical interventions lightly IMHO. In fact, in my experience, many doctor's seem to have a hard time accepting the end of life.

 

I am not sure if we have all of the facts of this story IMHO. As a nurse who worked in critical care, I firmly believe that in futile cases it is more humane to with hold medical interventions that only prolong death. The procedures that are used in critical care areas can be quite invasive and uncomfortable to say the least and are not humane when used in futile cases IMHO.

Edited September 12, 2009 by priscilla
clarify

[muffinmom]

I disagree since we have already heard from many posters here who universal health care and they are quite happy.

 

I am sorry for your friend but IMHO, I am unsure that you or your friend have all of the facts. I am a nurse and I know that diabetes can be very hard to treat for some people even with the best care. I have taken care of many diabetics who has lost their limbs, eyesight, kidneys, etc. since as one doctor put it, diabetes is like a metabolic cancer. :grouphug: For any one who has to deal with diabetes. Fortunately, in many persons, diabetes can be managed well, but for others their diabetes is just too brittle despite good care. In regards to the eye surgery, I could be wrong, but I am unaware of eye surgery that can correct diabetic eye problems:sad:

 

 

In regards to choice and waiting times, insurance companies already limit choice. Millions of Americans do not have a choice in health care insurance, doctors, etc. Plus, if you are uninsured, your choices are even more limited and it could even be a death sentence in some cases.

 

All I know is that something has to be done. We cannot stand by and let our fellow Americans suffer and go bankrupt over lack of health care.

 

My 2 cents:)

 

 

But she had to wait...wait to be treated. Here she wouldn't have had to wait. She might still have her legs. She might not be blind. (I have other examples besides her that have nothing to do with diabetes). Perhaps some of the other posters are happy because they haven't faced more serious health problems yet.

 

Insurance companies may limit choice, but there are many insurance options out there. And they don't all break the bank. My husband owns his own company and heavily researched insurance plans for us and for his employees. Many can be had for a reasonable price. He also found during his research of the numbers the Obama admin. has put out there that only about 5% of Americans are uninsured and don't want to be uninsured (I'm all for helping them, BTW). I thought it was pretty telling that Obama said the other night in his address that they only expected 5% of Americans to sign up for the public option. If there were so many uninsured like they've said all along, then surely more would rush to be served.

 

I don't want to give up the control of my health care, particularly to a govt. entity that won't be making decisions with my best interests in mind and no doubt will be a nightmare to communicate with...I don't want that for anyone. And I don't think it would be very serving of the needy to put them in a situation where they are just as helpless and they will be just as manipulated. Because then, even I won't be able to go to bat for them, because no one will have any power to.

 

BTW, my husband started doing research on this whole bill so he could find out how it would impact his business. He kept being more and more frustrated as he discovered the numbers being thrown around were not adding up. So he has created documents with all of his research with links to his sources. He has created a plan that would provide insurance through private companies for all Americans, with taxpayer help for those who can't pay. And it is drastically cheaper than what has been proposed and keeps control in the consumer's hands.

[Mom to Aly]

I can't say I'm shocked because this is exactly what happened to me, word for word. May 27, 1990 was the worst day of my life. I was 22 weeks, 5 days pregnant, and I started having contractions. I'd been to the hospital the day before, because I thought I'd had contractions, which had stopped, and they told me it was my imagination. I called the hosp, they told me I was over worried. I called them again, they told me it was gas. I called again, they told me not to call back. Then my water broke.

 

When I got there, a nurse saw me, told me there was no hope, the baby would not survive, her lungs would not be developed enough. I went through 17 hours of labor before she was born--it was Memorial Day weekend, and the doctor called in, but refused to come, since it was "hopeless"--I never saw a dr, but was delivered by a nurse, who would come in every hour or so, until right before delivery.

 

I held my daughter who lived for 6 minutes after birth. I was so grateful for that time.

 

It took 7 years and 9 specialists to tell me why I lost her--all because I was not examined or delivered by a doctor. And, btw, all of this was in Westchester County, right outside of Manhattan, in NY.

 

I had an incompetent cervix, but it shrunk during pregnancy, did not show up before--I finally found a dr. who had had the same thing, and she felt it was that, and told me she would make sure, no matter what, I would not lose another child. Every male dr. I saw said "Try again, if it happens again, then you'll know", like I could live through that again!

 

I got pregnant in 1998, my cervix shrunk at 5 & 1/2 weeks, I was put on full bed rest with bathroom and meal privileges at 6 weeks (though I did eat lying down--didn't want to take any chances), had a double cerclage at 12 weeks--where they sew your cervix shut--had 4 bouts with premature labor, then had PIH with super-imposed eclampsia. But, in 1999 I had my daughter, who made it, just short of 35 weeks, and is perfect in every way. When my cervix first shrunk, my dr.said she doubted I would make it past 7 months, but she said my vigilence and willingness to be so strict about bedrest is what did it--she said that is what most women won't stick to, which shocked me. The hardest thing was not knowing--they could have hung me upside down for 9 months, if only I'd known my darling baby would be alright.

 

I still miss my first daughter every day; I sobbed through writing this, it feels like yesterday. I thought time would help, and it has, but it still hasn't taken it away, and that horrible hospital was, in my opinion, horribly, horribly negligent in everything they did, or, rather, didn't do.

[Haiku]

 

Insurance companies may limit choice, but there are many insurance options out there. And they don't all break the bank.

 

Well, that's great for people who can buy independent insurance if their employer doesn't offer insurance or they aren't satisfied with their employer's insurance. But how about the families (like mine) whom no insurance companies will cover because of pre-existing conditions?

 

My husband owns his own company

 

My husband would love to own his own company, and at one point he and a friend looked into starting their own business. I called every major insurance company that operates in our state and every single one of them refused to cover us. We have no insurance options. We are limited to the one plan my husband's employer offers, and there is a good chance that they will stop providing insurance because the rates are going up around 25% per year. We currently spend half of what my husband makes on health insurance premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. My husband's income has gone down every year for five years because insurance prices keep climbing.

 

I don't want to give up the control of my health care, particularly to a govt. entity that won't be making decisions with my best interests in mind

 

We have no control over our health care, and our insurance company has it's shareholders' best interests in mind.

 

Where are people getting this idea of the benevolent corporation?

 

Tara

[muffinmom]

I feel like a broken record, but these things happen in the United States, too!

 

I know that there are people who persist in believing that people are never turned away in this country due to lack of ability to pay, or that health insurance companies never deny treatments, but it happens in the United States.

 

There will always be worst-case scenarios for universal health care AND profit-driven health care, but what we have to look at is where the greater benefit is. Given that there will be horror stories no matter what kind of health care there is, I opt for the choice that guarantees people coverage. I know people all across Canada and Europe and I have lived in Europe. I have never personally run across a situation in a country with universal healthcare where someone was denied treatment or forced to wait unreasonable amounts of time. I know dozens of people here in the States (my family included) who are getting screwed by their for-profit health insurance companies.

 

Tara

 

The difference is, in our current system, at least you have some recourse. You can switch insurance companies. You can fight, even sue the insurance companies. You can pay out of your own pocket for a treatment you need or desire (or if you have no money, your friends or family can help you). Every time we have paid out of our pocket (for the pregnancy and birth of our daughter, for several ER visits) we have been given a deep discount. But under a govt.-run system, you will have no recourse when things go wrong or not according to your wishes. You will just have to take what they give you, like it or not, adequate or not.

[mommaduck]

No, the doctor's are not God, but they are trained in medicine and are in the best position to know whether care is futile or not. Doctor's are trained to save lives and would not with hold medical interventions lightly IMHO. In fact, in my experience, many doctor's seem to have a hard time accepting the end of life.

 

I am not sure if we have all of the facts of this story IMHO. As a nurse who worked in critical care, I firmly believe that in futile cases it is more humane to with hold medical interventions that only prolong death. The procedures that are used in critical care areas can be quite invasive and uncomfortable to say the least and are not humane when used in futile cases IMHO.

No one said the doctors were Gd. Gd can do miracles through doctors though...but that only happens when doctors actually make an effort.

[ma23peas]

While it is true there was a time when there wasn't really health insurance and people just paid for the services, an office visit didn't cost half of a person's weekly salary. It isn't just about whether or not people have health insurance. It is also in part about the out of control costs of things.

 

I don't know who your grandparents were but an office visit did cost my grandparents half if not all their weekly salary...my grandparents were sharecroppers and farmers..they rarely had cash, it's all relative..I made more in my first 3 years in my career than my grandfather made in his lifetime..yes, the out of control costs are caused by a failure to have interstate competition and tort reform..you tackle those and you'll see your premiums cut in half...you attack the trial attorneys and put as many mandates on them as they do physicians and you'll see a drastic cost in health care...my pediatrician charges $65 for an office visit (with a strep test)....I doubt anyone working a 40 hour week can't afford a doctor visit when most pay $100 for cell phone fees, $75 for cable, $300 for utilities...it's all about what is important to you...is it necessary to have cable and phone? A simple cable line costs $20 a month...it's more about what we have, we want more and we want it given to us.

 

Tara

[muffinmom]

Well, that's great for people who can buy independent insurance if their employer doesn't offer insurance or they aren't satisfied with their employer's insurance. But how about the families (like mine) whom no insurance companies will cover because of pre-existing conditions?

 

 

 

My husband would love to own his own company, and at one point he and a friend looked into starting their own business. I called every major insurance company that operates in our state and every single one of them refused to cover us. We have no insurance options. We are limited to the one plan my husband's employer offers, and there is a good chance that they will stop providing insurance because the rates are going up around 25% per year. We currently spend half of what my husband makes on health insurance premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. My husband's income has gone down every year for five years because insurance prices keep climbing.

 

 

 

We have no control over our health care, and our insurance company has it's shareholders' best interests in mind.

 

Where are people getting this idea of the benevolent corporation?

 

Tara

 

First, I'd like to say I'm very sorry for your situation. I know others in similar situations. My husband has a preexisting condition and our insurance won't cover anything related to it.

 

The truth is, insurance companies are here to make a profit. If anybody thinks they are something else, they will be disappointed. And health insurance, if desired, should be gotten when one is still healthy (an auto insurance co. will not insure your car after it's been totaled). It's you gambling that you will need the insurance payoff one day (and you are planning ahead for such a time), and the insurance co. is taking the risk that you won't need them anytime soon.

 

But I agree that there need to be some regulations regarding preexisting conditions. And I believe there are many things that can be done to improve the insurance industry that haven't been tried. But for those who are still healthy enough, and this applies to many, there are plenty of good options.

 

I'm not saying that no changes need to be made. Not at all. Just that there is this perception that insurance is completely unaffordable. Some is, some isn't.

 

And I believe that trading private health care for a public version is simply trading in old problems for new problems. There will still be many problems but we will have less control over resolving them.

[Haiku]

You can switch insurance companies.

 

Not everyone can do that. See post 124. And anyway, in every country I have been in that offers universal health coverage, there is also a parallel private industry for those who wish to buy private insurance. Which is pretty much what Obama is proposing here: a public option for those who want it and the continuation of private coverage for those who wish to keep theirs.

 

Tara

[ma23peas]

Wouldn't basic healthcare fall under *life* anyway?

 

 

 

No...life comes under the role that our government should PROTECT your life from terrorists and attack...hence the National Guard and Armed services...I certainly would appreciate discussion that actually contributes to the discussion rather than pokes sarcasm...I think it's a very important discussion and a lot of misunderstanding on the high costs...I have many friends who are attornies...they have a completely different take on frivolous lawsuits..they see it all the time, if you're a civil or tax attorney, maybe not so much, but my friends are directly involved in malpractice cases and see it all the time.

 

Tara

[ma23peas]

Not everyone can do that. See post 124. And anyway, in every country I have been in that offers universal health coverage, there is also a parallel private industry for those who wish to buy private insurance. Which is pretty much what Obama is proposing here: a public option for those who want it and the continuation of private coverage for those who wish to keep theirs.

 

Tara

 

Love your name by the way! Everyone CAN do that if we pass legislation for interstate competition and take it away from employer based...you can go out on your own and shop for the plan that best fits you, by taking that element away from your employer it cuts down his costs and he might actually be able to pay you more!! It's a win-win...we are getting more and more services with our cable phone..prices are low b/c there is competition, I pay $20 a month for home service, FREE long distance/free call waiting/free about 10 other options...5 years ago I paid $80-$100 for the SAME service...competition and advancements can lead to a better system..but the more our government gets involved and more administrative offices are created, the more everything costs...

 

Tara

[Haiku]

I have said it before and I will say it again: All I want is two things.

 

1) Anyone who wants health insurance can get it.

 

2) There is no price gouging.

 

If those two things are accomplished, I don't care whether it's public or private. However, I firmly believe that in order to make sure everyone who wants health insurance can get it, the government is going to have to make some mandates.

 

Tara

[mommyrooch]

Have insurance? Yes.

 

Satisfied? Not in my wildest hallucinations.

 

"Reliable poll" -- generally an oxymoronic term

 

I love this! :hurray: I would say that these statements would be my sentiments exactly.

[PineFarmMom]

No one said the doctors were Gd. Gd can do miracles through doctors though...but that only happens when doctors actually make an effort.

 

Precisely!!

[PineFarmMom]

I absolutely understand your position regarding worldview. However, public policy in a less than perfect world means that using all available scientific information and research that shows fairly clearly that life cannot be sustained makes it also wrong to spend a great deal of money and effort that will yield no different result in outcome . Especially when the same dollars can be used to actually bring about healing and a viable outcome when utilized in a situation that is not scientifically futile. Not to speak of the fact that this is not a theocracy and individual belief systems regarding miracles cannot be the basis of public policy or science. It is absolutely your right to see and live according to your worldview but that does not make for sound public policy in a government based on the concept that there are many, many people who share dissimilar ideas regarding morality, theology and our purpose on the planet.

 

Okay. Fine. Let's remove God from it (He can't be removed, but for this let's play pretend). In any medical situation, I the mother should have a right to be willing to request that a doctor go the extra mile (if the doctor isn't humane enough to do it himself) AND be willing to pay the $$ for that extra effort. If this healthcare mess goes through, unless all I'm seeing is incorrect, those rights as a mother would be taken from me because it wouldn't be worth it to them.

 

If I was dying of cancer and everyone said there was just no chance in the world I would live, I would still have a right to request treatment to do whatever it took to assist me in grabbing life if I was willing to pay that $$!! But if I'm on govt. funded healthcare, I'd be at their mercy to decide if I was even worth their $$ to save. And I'm telling you, I just don't feel that much trust in the govt. to make those decisions for me and my loved ones. <shudder>

 

And also, just because this is a newborn does not remove the right for that child to have life!! I realize I'm dealing with more than one issue here and a lot of it is worldview.

[mommyrooch]

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

Frankly I am more concerned about private health care insurance companies being between me and my doctor than the government. I believe that private health insurance companies are strictly motivated by the bottom line and fat paychecks, including the so-called non-profit ones.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[Lovedtodeath]

I am coming in late. I did not read most of this thread.

No, the doctor's are not God, but they are trained in medicine and are in the best position to know whether care is futile or not. Doctor's are trained to save lives and would not with hold medical interventions lightly IMHO. In fact, in my experience, many doctor's seem to have a hard time accepting the end of life.

 

I am not sure if we have all of the facts of this story IMHO. As a nurse who worked in critical care, I firmly believe that in futile cases it is more humane to with hold medical interventions that only prolong death. The procedures that are used in critical care areas can be quite invasive and uncomfortable to say the least and are not humane when used in futile cases IMHO.

I have been there. It is such a horrific experience that at times I wish that they had let me die. Yes, it is awful. awful. Thinking on it now, if my baby was born so early I would want it to die peacefully in my arms, not being tortured by hospital staff. Of course it would be a horrible experience either way, and being faced with a baby who is dying would make the decision very hard, and perhaps different. No one wants their baby to die.

 

Well, that's great for people who can buy independent insurance if their employer doesn't offer insurance or they aren't satisfied with their employer's insurance. But how about the families (like mine) whom no insurance companies will cover because of pre-existing conditions?

 

 

 

My husband would love to own his own company, and at one point he and a friend looked into starting their own business. I called every major insurance company that operates in our state and every single one of them refused to cover us. We have no insurance options. We are limited to the one plan my husband's employer offers, and there is a good chance that they will stop providing insurance because the rates are going up around 25% per year. We currently spend half of what my husband makes on health insurance premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. My husband's income has gone down every year for five years because insurance prices keep climbing.

 

 

 

We have no control over our health care, and our insurance company has it's shareholders' best interests in mind.

 

Where are people getting this idea of the benevolent corporation?

 

Tara

:iagree:

[mommyrooch]

Is that our goal as a society, then? To go back to the time when few people saw doctors because they couldn't afford it?

 

There is price gauging on a massive scale going on. My husband works for a small company. We get the same insurance as my friend, whose husband works for a large company. They have the same number of people in their family that we have in ours. Their company gets the policy for about 75% less than my husband's company does.

 

This is not about people wanting handouts from the government. It's about people having equitable treatment in the healthcare marketplace and not being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

 

Tara

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree: My son is a Leukemia survivor. He is now "tainted" and "unclean" in the eyes of insurance companies because he has a pre-existing condition. If we EVER let our group plan lapse or God Forbid my husband looses his job my son will NEVER be able to obtain heath insurance again.

 

My husband has two degrees and has never been unemployed a day in his life. We work hard for what we have and we are NOT looking for a handout from anyone. We have always worked hard and "earned" what we have.

 

What I AM looking for is the assurance that my son will be able to get healthcare someday when he becomes a daddy. I want to see him have the ability to provide his kids with health insurance "DESPITE" the fact that he was unlucky enough to be stricken with cancer. I want to know that God Forbid my husband looses his job and we loose his company provided insurance we will still be able to get our son medical care.

 

These are the things that I want. I don't "want" you money. I don't "want" a handout but if I have to make a choice between your taxes going up some and my son being guaranteed equal medical coverage despite his cancer then you'll just have to forgive me when I say "boo hoo!" :crying:

 

And in case you couldn't tell, I do believe that healthcare is a right, not a luxury. ;)

[kalanamak]

if my baby was born so early I would want it to die peacefully in my arms, not being tortured by hospital staff.

 

 

:iagree:so much I'm dizzy from nodding.

[justamouse]

And also, just because this is a newborn does not remove the right for that child to have life!! I realize I'm dealing with more than one issue here and a lot of it is worldview.

 

You are speaking of your personal worldview, right?

 

I am a committed Christian and I believe is is our moral obligation to provide healthcare. So, just because you're (universal you) a Christian, and pro life, doesn't mean that you disagree with universal healthcare.

 

And on the OP, I actually agree with the hard choice the Drs made. NO ONE likes those decisions, but sometimes heroic measures hurt more than they help. Although I wished that the mother had at least held the child and kangarooed it. That may have been the only way to change the outcome. I have a dear friend who works in the NICU and she has told me horrific stories where it was just right that the child be left to die peacefully. It is a horrible thing, no doubt, but sometimes the most compassionate.

Edited September 13, 2009 by justamouse

[Lovedtodeath]

 

And on the OP, I actually agree with the hard choice the Drs made. NO ONE likes those decisions, but sometimes heroic measures hurt more than they help. Although I wished that the mother had at least held the child and kangarooed it.

:iagree:I didn't read the article, or most of the posts. I knew it would be too painful. I hate that the infant didn't die as comfortably as possible. That is the tragedy.

[SonshineLearner]

Gosh, I'm thinking that every time the government provides something, competition is able to survive. Like Public/Government School....for instance. I mean... we all pay something for it...so everyone can be educated... and then those who choose to educate their own children... or private school.... can support those too! Hmmmm....

 

Government intervention doesn't sound good to me. I vote for tax credits for people who need help. Something besides another program for government to mess up...

 

About the baby, I can totally understand why this happened. When life in the womb under a certain age, is not legally protected... then why should like outside of the womb be protected? This was just Drs making a decision without the parent's consent...versus for/with the parents...

 

Carrie

Edited September 13, 2009 by NayfiesMama

[Lovedtodeath]

Government intervention doesn't sound good to me. I vote for tax credits for people who need help. Something besides another program for government to mess up...

Carrie

McCain was supposedly planning to give us $3,000 in cash for insurance. I really thought that would be great.

[Laurie4b]

I can't say I'm shocked because this is exactly what happened to me, word for word. May 27, 1990 was the worst day of my life. I was 22 weeks, 5 days pregnant, and I started having contractions. I'd been to the hospital the day before, because I thought I'd had contractions, which had stopped, and they told me it was my imagination. I called the hosp, they told me I was over worried. I called them again, they told me it was gas. I called again, they told me not to call back. Then my water broke.

 

When I got there, a nurse saw me, told me there was no hope, the baby would not survive, her lungs would not be developed enough. I went through 17 hours of labor before she was born--it was Memorial Day weekend, and the doctor called in, but refused to come, since it was "hopeless"--I never saw a dr, but was delivered by a nurse, who would come in every hour or so, until right before delivery.

 

I held my daughter who lived for 6 minutes after birth. I was so grateful for that time.

 

It took 7 years and 9 specialists to tell me why I lost her--all because I was not examined or delivered by a doctor. And, btw, all of this was in Westchester County, right outside of Manhattan, in NY.

 

I had an incompetent cervix, but it shrunk during pregnancy, did not show up before--I finally found a dr. who had had the same thing, and she felt it was that, and told me she would make sure, no matter what, I would not lose another child. Every male dr. I saw said "Try again, if it happens again, then you'll know", like I could live through that again!

 

I got pregnant in 1998, my cervix shrunk at 5 & 1/2 weeks, I was put on full bed rest with bathroom and meal privileges at 6 weeks (though I did eat lying down--didn't want to take any chances), had a double cerclage at 12 weeks--where they sew your cervix shut--had 4 bouts with premature labor, then had PIH with super-imposed eclampsia. But, in 1999 I had my daughter, who made it, just short of 35 weeks, and is perfect in every way. When my cervix first shrunk, my dr.said she doubted I would make it past 7 months, but she said my vigilence and willingness to be so strict about bedrest is what did it--she said that is what most women won't stick to, which shocked me. The hardest thing was not knowing--they could have hung me upside down for 9 months, if only I'd known my darling baby would be alright.

 

I still miss my first daughter every day; I sobbed through writing this, it feels like yesterday. I thought time would help, and it has, but it still hasn't taken it away, and that horrible hospital was, in my opinion, horribly, horribly negligent in everything they did, or, rather, didn't do.

 

I am so sorry.

[SabrinainPA]

If I may share, I am the mother of a 23-weeker (as she has come to be known in the NICU). Emma is now 42 weeks (gestational age) and still resides in the NICU. The decision to "save" her was based on many factors, but, in the end, it was one made by my willingness to have an emergency C-section, with a vertical incision, rather than put her through the trauma of a normal birth. There was a team of specialists in my room, as her gestational age was computed down to the day, because cut-off for viability was 24 weeks. They assessed her at 23 weeks, 4 days, but agreed to the delivery due to "room for error". Never did I doubt the willingness of the staff, and it was the neonatologist who deemed Emma "viable" based on how she presented.

 

I could not read all of these posts, but I just wanted to add my recent and ongoing experience with this painful topic and say that there are doctors and nurses in this country who will go to amazing lengths for others. And while I realize there is a finite amount of resources, and at some point choices must be made, I look at my baby and think back over the past four months of terrible struggles and illness and times we were told to say good-bye, and just marvel at the fight and strength in that small package. There are so many babies in that NICU who have no one, and who are there without insurances to cover them. I know, because I have spoken with many of the other parents, and staff. It is a testament to the fact that this country does have a system in place to care for the indigent and the unwanted. It could be better - it has to be made better. But it will not get better if we do not place a value on life - and that begins with the children. I'm sorry if this is a ramble - I just needed to share. Thank you.

[muffinmom]

Not everyone can do that. See post 124. And anyway, in every country I have been in that offers universal health coverage, there is also a parallel private industry for those who wish to buy private insurance. Which is pretty much what Obama is proposing here: a public option for those who want it and the continuation of private coverage for those who wish to keep theirs.

 

Tara

 

I am OK with there being a public option as long as no one is forced to join...ever. But I have my doubts that this is the final intention. The bill as first proposed was nothing near what Obama described the other night (from what I understand, under the bill (over time) it would become illegal to have private insurance). But some of the things he mentioned in his address made me realize that some of the things he will put into place could easily force the private sector to have to go out of business, and then he will get what he wants...forcing it without it looking like he's forcing it.

[mommyrooch]

If I may share, I am the mother of a 23-weeker (as she has come to be known in the NICU). Emma is now 42 weeks (gestational age) and still resides in the NICU. The decision to "save" her was based on many factors, but, in the end, it was one made by my willingness to have an emergency C-section, with a vertical incision, rather than put her through the trauma of a normal birth. There was a team of specialists in my room, as her gestational age was computed down to the day, because cut-off for viability was 24 weeks. They assessed her at 23 weeks, 4 days, but agreed to the delivery due to "room for error". Never did I doubt the willingness of the staff, and it was the neonatologist who deemed Emma "viable" based on how she presented.

 

I could not read all of these posts, but I just wanted to add my recent and ongoing experience with this painful topic and say that there are doctors and nurses in this country who will go to amazing lengths for others. And while I realize there is a finite amount of resources, and at some point choices must be made, I look at my baby and think back over the past four months of terrible struggles and illness and times we were told to say good-bye, and just marvel at the fight and strength in that small package. There are so many babies in that NICU who have no one, and who are there without insurances to cover them. I know, because I have spoken with many of the other parents, and staff. It is a testament to the fact that this country does have a system in place to care for the indigent and the unwanted. It could be better - it has to be made better. But it will not get better if we do not place a value on life - and that begins with the children. I'm sorry if this is a ramble - I just needed to share. Thank you.

 

This was a beautiful post. Thank you very much for sharing.

 

I completely agree with you. This will not get better if we do not place a higher value on life. That I why I advocate so strongly for healthcare for everyone. Life is precious and the medical treatment of that life should NEVER be dictated by ones financial status or by the fact that they have a pre-existing condition. EVERYONE should be guaranteed medical care. PERIOD!

 

I am so happy and grateful that the hospital and doctors have taken such great care of little Emma. What a blessing! It is also a blessing to hear about how they are helping the other families as well. What a great facility and what amazing people! Thank you very much for sharing. I will say a special prayer for your precious Emma tonight. :grouphug:

[Word Nerd]

If I may share, I am the mother of a 23-weeker (as she has come to be known in the NICU). Emma is now 42 weeks (gestational age) and still resides in the NICU. The decision to "save" her was based on many factors, but, in the end, it was one made by my willingness to have an emergency C-section, with a vertical incision, rather than put her through the trauma of a normal birth. There was a team of specialists in my room, as her gestational age was computed down to the day, because cut-off for viability was 24 weeks. They assessed her at 23 weeks, 4 days, but agreed to the delivery due to "room for error". Never did I doubt the willingness of the staff, and it was the neonatologist who deemed Emma "viable" based on how she presented.

 

I could not read all of these posts, but I just wanted to add my recent and ongoing experience with this painful topic and say that there are doctors and nurses in this country who will go to amazing lengths for others. And while I realize there is a finite amount of resources, and at some point choices must be made, I look at my baby and think back over the past four months of terrible struggles and illness and times we were told to say good-bye, and just marvel at the fight and strength in that small package. There are so many babies in that NICU who have no one, and who are there without insurances to cover them. I know, because I have spoken with many of the other parents, and staff. It is a testament to the fact that this country does have a system in place to care for the indigent and the unwanted. It could be better - it has to be made better. But it will not get better if we do not place a value on life - and that begins with the children. I'm sorry if this is a ramble - I just needed to share. Thank you.

 

:grouphug:

[astrid]

I don't know who your grandparents were but an office visit did cost my grandparents half if not all their weekly salary...my grandparents were sharecroppers and farmers..they rarely had cash, it's all relative..I made more in my first 3 years in my career than my grandfather made in his lifetime..yes, the out of control costs are caused by a failure to have interstate competition and tort reform..you tackle those and you'll see your premiums cut in half...you attack the trial attorneys and put as many mandates on them as they do physicians and you'll see a drastic cost in health care...my pediatrician charges $65 for an office visit (with a strep test)....I doubt anyone working a 40 hour week can't afford a doctor visit when most pay $100 for cell phone fees, $75 for cable, $300 for utilities...it's all about what is important to you...is it necessary to have cable and phone? A simple cable line costs $20 a month...it's more about what we have, we want more and we want it given to us.

 

Tara

 

WOW. "It's all about what's important to you?" A family can live as frugally as humanly possible. Scrimp and save every penny. No cable, no cell phones, eat beans and hot dogs and shop at goodwill for twenty years, setting aside every spare dime for eventual health care needs.

 

Then someone is diagnosed with ALS or cancer or MS. Or hit by a drunk driver while walking the dog, left paralyzed and in a vegetative state. (wait...no dog. Too expensive. Just walking, because they only have one car. That's better....)

 

You know how fast that savings would last? Not very long. Hospital care....rehab......nursing home.......

 

Looking down one's nose at those who are insured, under-insured and are still burdened with medical bills is quite likely the most ridiculous, pompous sanctimonious attitude I've ever heard.

 

Astrid

[Lovedtodeath]

Looking down one's nose at those who are insured, under-insured and are still burdened with medical bills is quite likely the most ridiculous, pompous sanctimonious attitude I've ever heard.

 

I never thought that was Tara's intention.

[astrid]

I never thought that was Tara's intention.

 

Perhaps it wasn't. However, that's how I interpreted it. If I did so in error, I apologize. Intimating that those who have cable television and a computer haven't planned well enough or do not view saving money for health care as a priority, IMHO, is a really big leap.

 

astrid

[Word Nerd]

WOW. "It's all about what's important to you?" A family can live as frugally as humanly possible. Scrimp and save every penny. No cable, no cell phones, eat beans and hot dogs and shop at goodwill for twenty years, setting aside every spare dime for eventual health care needs.

 

Then someone is diagnosed with ALS or cancer or MS. Or hit by a drunk driver while walking the dog, left paralyzed and in a vegetative state. (wait...no dog. Too expensive. Just walking, because they only have one car. That's better....)

 

You know how fast that savings would last? Not very long. Hospital care....rehab......nursing home.......

 

Looking down one's nose at those who are insured, under-insured and are still burdened with medical bills is quite likely the most ridiculous, pompous sanctimonious attitude I've ever heard.

 

Astrid

 

WOW! You're really reading a lot into her post.

[astrid]

WOW! You're really reading a lot into her post.

 

I doubt anyone working a 40 hour week can't afford a doctor visit when most pay $100 for cell phone fees, $75 for cable, $300 for utilities...it's all about what is important to you...is it necessary to have cable and phone? A simple cable line costs $20 a month...it's more about what we have, we want more and we want it given to us.

 

Sorry, I don't know any other way to interpret this passage.

 

astrid

[Tree House Academy]

One of my best friends was a 22 week premie in 1971! She lived - her mother always called her a miracle child. This article breaks my heart! How can anyone have such a disregard for human life. Those doctors will answer for that one day - they "played God" here. :(

 

ETA: I agree with other posters that heroic measures shouldn't have been the first course of action, but to not even SEE the baby or put it in a warmer? Oh my.

Edited September 13, 2009 by Tree House Academy

[Lovedtodeath]

Sorry, I don't know any other way to interpret this passage.

Well, honestly that type of thinking does irk me when I have spent over $1000 a month on my own medical care more often than I like to remember. So I deserve to live in a box because I am unhealthy? Believe me, my life is screwed up enough due to my health problems. I don't need the added burden of the cost.

 

I can see your POV.

[astrid]

Thank you. I'm sorry about your health issues.....truly. Life isn't as black and white as some would like it to be. Illness, ANY illness, can be catastrophic to a family--- regardless of income level and the number of television channels at your fingertips.

 

Healing Peace, Lovedtodeath.

 

astrid

[Haiku]

I doubt anyone working a 40 hour week can't afford a doctor visit when most pay $100 for cell phone fees, $75 for cable, $300 for utilities...it's all about what is important to you...is it necessary to have cable and phone?

 

Somehow it always comes back to blaming people who don't have insurance for their own screwed up priorities, lack of work ethic, etc. I don't think we're talking about a one-time trip to pediatrician because little Sally has an ear infection.

 

My husband works a 40-hour week, occasionally. More often it's a 50-60 hour week. He has a degree. He has a white-collar job. We live frugally (although I must admit that we do have a computer ... my husband works in the advertising industry and often he works at home on the weekends so that he doesn't have to spend his weekends away from home). Saving money is not the issue for us. Our insurance costs $1600 a month. Add to that medication co-pays and deductibles for the office visits when my kids see their specialists and, as I mentioned, we spend half our income on health care. It does not matter how carefully we save ... one of my children's medications cost more than my husband makes in a year. Reducing this complex issue down to "It's all about what is important to you" is just so, so offensive. If we lived in a cardboard box and ate grass we could not pay for my kids' health care needs out of pocket. There are so many families in our situation, but no matter how much I point out that employed people with health insurance also struggle mightily under the current healthcare system, it always comes back to blaming some faceless other who won't work and expects a government handout or prefers to spend their money on toys rather than their kids' health needs.

 

Someone once told me that I should get a job if I was so worried about healthcare costs (I do have a seasonal job). But that's kinda beside the point, because we would still be spending half of my college-educated husband's white-collar salary on health care. And THAT'S a problem.

 

Tara

Edited September 13, 2009 by TaraTheLiberator

[kalanamak]

In regards to the eye surgery, I could be wrong, but I am unaware of eye surgery that can correct diabetic eye problems:sad:

 

 

Google

neovascularization laser

 

and read at the technical level of your choice. The amputation is tricker. We are pretty good at large vessel grafts, but diabetic changes in leg circulation are more micro-vascular, and I'd be a very rich woman if I came up with a solid treatment.

[Melissa in Australia]

The difference is, in our current system, at least you have some recourse. You can switch insurance companies. You can fight, even sue the insurance companies. You can pay out of your own pocket for a treatment you need or desire (or if you have no money, your friends or family can help you). Every time we have paid out of our pocket (for the pregnancy and birth of our daughter, for several ER visits) we have been given a deep discount. But under a govt.-run system, you will have no recourse when things go wrong or not according to your wishes. You will just have to take what they give you, like it or not, adequate or not.

Not so! In Australia you CAN have private health insurance, and there are private doctors and hospitals.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Honestly, this boils down to world view. MY God can do miracles. MY God has the ability to take that 1% chance and make it a viable, worthwhile, healthy life. It really doesn't matter what statistics are because God won't be bothered with statistics. The doctors in that hospital are not God and have no right to play God. It's ridiculous & evil what was done to that baby and that mother.

 

 

 

But many times your God chooses NOT to intervene and so these kids are left on machines for months to live short painful and very expensive lives.

 

 

 

And at what cost? (and I'm not talkin about money here! At what emotional cost to the parents?)

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

I feel like a broken record, but these things happen in the United States, too!

 

I know that there are people who persist in believing that people are never turned away in this country due to lack of ability to pay, or that health insurance companies never deny treatments, but it happens in the United States.

 

There will always be worst-case scenarios for universal health care AND profit-driven health care, but what we have to look at is where the greater benefit is. Given that there will be horror stories no matter what kind of health care there is, I opt for the choice that guarantees people coverage. I know people all across Canada and Europe and I have lived in Europe. I have never personally run across a situation in a country with universal healthcare where someone was denied treatment or forced to wait unreasonable amounts of time. I know dozens of people here in the States (my family included) who are getting screwed by their for-profit health insurance companies.

 

Tara

 

 

I pretty much said this exact same thing to my mother as we were debating universal healthcare while waiting with her in her doctor's office.

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

I never said I knew why the rates are so high. That is why I put in parenthesis that medical malpractice is what I have been told is the reason. I am not a doctor and nor do I have experience working in the medical field which is why I put the disclaimer if you will. You seem to be much more informed in this area then I so can you tell me why the medical costs are so high all around?? I mean don't hospitals even charge you like $10.00 or something similiar for 2 tylenol??

 

 

I'm only moderately informed on these issues. I certainly wouldn't call myself an expert on it. I just know from listening to hundreds of conversations on these topics by lawyers and doctors (because I happen to be related to 5 lawyers and 2 doctors and have met many, many of their colleagues). Also, my mom is a registered nurse who worked in a public hospital for 12 years. She saw plenty of people who did not get decent healthcare, regardless of whether or not they had private insurance. She also saw people who had no health coverage treated very poorly. I also have good friends who worked hard all their lives. The husband worked over 20 years for the phone company and became very ill. He had heart surgery, was unable to return to work and was dropped from his insurance. Then his wife was laid off from her job of 22 years. They couldn't affored the medical bills and lost their home, their car, and all their retirement savings. Something is very, very wrong about that. I have another friend who had cervical cancer. Her husband HATES his job, but can't even consider looking for a new one, because of her "pre-existing condition", even though she's been cancer-free for 5 years. It's crazy.

 

I think this vicious cycle of rising health care costs came about when private insurance companies decided what amount of medical bills they would "allow". The doctors are forced to inflate prices, because insurance will only pay a certain percentage, and the doctors need to cover costs. I think it keeps growing and growing further out of control.

 

Except for a small portion of specialized surgeons and things, I don't think a lot of doctors are rolling in the dough. Sure, they make decent money, but most of them have HUGE student loan payments. On the other hand, from what I understand, insurance company executives ARE rolling in the dough.

 

I don't have statistics to back up any of this. It's just my opinion from hearing the news, reading the news, and the aforementioned hundreds of conversations I've endured on the topic.

[muffinmom]

Not so! In Australia you CAN have private health insurance, and there are private doctors and hospitals.

 

 

I know that's true in other countries. But the bill that was originally proposed would (over time) make private insurance illegal. I'm not OK with that.