Anonymous wrote:Kind of like the "neutral" government panel at the IRS? No thanks!

The IRS was doing its job. Appropriately. This manufactured outrage by Tea Party backers who brought you Citizens United don't really believe that their clients have been unfairly persecuted -- they just want to intimidate the IRS into stop enforcing tax laws governing the inflow of money into politics. Pretty neat trick, too.

I'm no expert. My understanding in this case is that the "deciding rules" have not kept up with the technology.

Kind of like the "neutral" government panel at the IRS? No thanks!

The wealthy have always received better care than the poor. That will probably remain true. However, a neutral panel, even one composed of government bureaucrats, may even the playing field. As several PP's have said, as long as resources are limited, some will be denied care. To blame the panel for those, without giving credit for the fact that more people may live because of the panel, is grossly misleading.

I think OP should learn how to write real sentences and paragraphs before she tries to teach all of us about the ACA.

How should we decide who gets a scarce organ?

The person with the most facebook likes?

The person with the most money?

The person who was first at the site of an accident and called dibs?

Obviously her doctors think she is a good candidate and other doctors disagree, because they think a transplant has more likelihood of success with an adult patient. It's not as if that lung is going to be thrown away.

How would you like it if you needed that lung, and some facebook campaign resulted in it going to someone for whom it wasn't suitable and the transplant was rejected?

That has nothing to do with the Affordable Healthcare Act. Nothing. It's the way organ donations have been managed for a long, long time.

It is a great example of what we can expect under the AHA.

There are a limited number of organs available for transplant. The bureaucracy that you are complaining about insures that the organs go where they can do the most good. That's very sad for this kid because she isn't a candidate for an adult organ and is having a hard time getting a pediatric organ. However, organ donation is always a matter of rationing scare resources.

That has nothing to do with the Affordable Healthcare Act. Nothing. It's the way organ donations have been managed for a long, long time.

Anonymous wrote:Insurance companies are bureaucrats too. I'd MUCH rather have the government making these decisions about life and death than profit-minded insurance company bureaucrats who want to earn their bonus.

Your comment makes no sense. The insurance company is not denying her the transplant. The government is.

Anonymous wrote:Your insane ramblings don't validate your subject line, OP.

Can you explain why? Seems to me it's federal regulations causing the problem here. The doctors agree that this child is a good candidate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why the Feds should not run medicine


The field of medicine has changed dramatically when it comes to the surgical techniques that transplant surgeons use. From minimally invasive therapy to partial organ transplants, new technical miracles continue to develop. Therefore, the argument that an adult organ may not be usable in a 10-year-old is no longer valid, and certainly open for discussion in our clinical community. As reports have told us, Sarah’s surgeons do agree that in her case, an adult transplant just might work.

So the DOCTORS agree Sarah is a good candidate but the bureaucrats do not.....


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/06/04/secretary-sebelius-stop-hiding-behind-bureaucratic-rules-and-save-childs-life/#ixzz2VLBN4h7N

By bureaucrats, you mean the doctors who have many other candidates to receive the same donor kidney....

If that's the case, then why go to the Fed level for permission?

And it's a lung that's in question - glad you read the article and understand the nuances. LOL.

Insurance companies are bureaucrats too. I'd MUCH rather have the government making these decisions about life and death than profit-minded insurance company bureaucrats who want to earn their bonus.

Your insane ramblings don't validate your subject line, OP.

Anonymous wrote:This is why the Feds should not run medicine


The field of medicine has changed dramatically when it comes to the surgical techniques that transplant surgeons use. From minimally invasive therapy to partial organ transplants, new technical miracles continue to develop. Therefore, the argument that an adult organ may not be usable in a 10-year-old is no longer valid, and certainly open for discussion in our clinical community. As reports have told us, Sarah’s surgeons do agree that in her case, an adult transplant just might work.

So the DOCTORS agree Sarah is a good candidate but the bureaucrats do not.....


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/06/04/secretary-sebelius-stop-hiding-behind-bureaucratic-rules-and-save-childs-life/#ixzz2VLBN4h7N

By bureaucrats, you mean the doctors who have many other candidates to receive the same donor kidney....

This is why the Feds should not run medicine


The field of medicine has changed dramatically when it comes to the surgical techniques that transplant surgeons use. From minimally invasive therapy to partial organ transplants, new technical miracles continue to develop. Therefore, the argument that an adult organ may not be usable in a 10-year-old is no longer valid, and certainly open for discussion in our clinical community. As reports have told us, Sarah’s surgeons do agree that in her case, an adult transplant just might work.

So the DOCTORS agree Sarah is a good candidate but the bureaucrats do not.....


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/06/04/secretary-sebelius-stop-hiding-behind-bureaucratic-rules-and-save-childs-life/#ixzz2VLBN4h7N