Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you are comfortable allowing government to make decisions for you even if you can afford to go private?

As ok as I am with some administrative insurance employee making decisions for me after I paid the company for coverage.

PP here-A child I know has Crohn's disease and is flaring badly, despite using Humira. She's been admitted to the hospital because she's having bloody diarrhea and is very sick. Her doctor wants to try her on Entyvio, a relatively new biologic developed specifically for IBD. She can go home when she's "only" having bloody diarrhea 10-12 times a day, rather than mostly continuously. The insurance company says they'll cover Entyvio, but not on an inpatient basis. Without the trying the Entyvio, it'll be hard to stablize her so she can get the Entyvio as an outpatient, but she can't get it covered as an inpatient. So, the dr. has to try to find some other less theraputic and desirable way to stablize her so she can be released long enough to get the Entyvio as an outpatient. Nevermind that she's seriously ill and suffering, she's not able to get the most beneficial treatment when she needs it.

WTF kind of sense does that make?

Drug companies will bypass insurance companies and give the drug for free in cases like this. Doctor won't ask for it - parents have to. They could also just buy it themselves outside the insurance and bring it to the doctor. There ARE choices. These parents in the UK have 1.8 million dollars. They aren't asking the government to do anything but release their child to them and the government is saying no, your child will die here and without your say.

By the way? Your friend's child can go home any time her parents sign a release to get her out. The hospital cannot hold her prisoner in this country. Your friend also had choices of insurance companies, and clearly didn't research this aspect of things, given she has a chronically ill child. They can also appeal it further up in the insurance company, including involving a lawyer.

These parents in the UK have no option but to watch their child die because the government won't release their child. They have NO choice.

You have no clue what you're talking about. None. At. All.

No one's giving Entyvio away. It's an expensive infusion that has to be administered like chemo under medical supervision. You don't know anything about the child's mother and her health insurance choices, so just STFU with your judgment. You also don't know how long the child's had a chronic illness; kids can present with IBD, be diagnosed, and immediately need to have their colons removed to save their lives. People get sick AFTER they've selected insurance and then have to try to make that coverage work or they don't have any choices about their coverage. How long should a child be having bloody diarrhea, losing massive amounts of weight to the point of emaciation, and deteriorating while the appeals are done and the lawyers battle it out? To even suggest that to bolster your own weak and erroneous points and to justify our health care system shows the kind of horrible person you are.

I know little about medicine, PO, and appreciate your explanation. Is there a better treatment for the child with Crohn's disease.

Thank you

Anonymous wrote:Parents have raised money to privately pay his way to US. Docs in US have accepted him in trial. UK hospital refuses to release him to go:

https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2017/06/british-baby-die-hospital/

This has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with universal health care.

So don't use it to lobby against it. Makes no sense.

You can go anywhere you want in universal healthcare- but in any healthcare system the hospital may not want to let you go, if they feel you won't survive the transfer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you are comfortable allowing government to make decisions for you even if you can afford to go private?

As ok as I am with some administrative insurance employee making decisions for me after I paid the company for coverage.

PP here-A child I know has Crohn's disease and is flaring badly, despite using Humira. She's been admitted to the hospital because she's having bloody diarrhea and is very sick. Her doctor wants to try her on Entyvio, a relatively new biologic developed specifically for IBD. She can go home when she's "only" having bloody diarrhea 10-12 times a day, rather than mostly continuously. The insurance company says they'll cover Entyvio, but not on an inpatient basis. Without the trying the Entyvio, it'll be hard to stablize her so she can get the Entyvio as an outpatient, but she can't get it covered as an inpatient. So, the dr. has to try to find some other less theraputic and desirable way to stablize her so she can be released long enough to get the Entyvio as an outpatient. Nevermind that she's seriously ill and suffering, she's not able to get the most beneficial treatment when she needs it.

WTF kind of sense does that make?

Drug companies will bypass insurance companies and give the drug for free in cases like this. Doctor won't ask for it - parents have to. They could also just buy it themselves outside the insurance and bring it to the doctor. There ARE choices. These parents in the UK have 1.8 million dollars. They aren't asking the government to do anything but release their child to them and the government is saying no, your child will die here and without your say.

By the way? Your friend's child can go home any time her parents sign a release to get her out. The hospital cannot hold her prisoner in this country. Your friend also had choices of insurance companies, and clearly didn't research this aspect of things, given she has a chronically ill child. They can also appeal it further up in the insurance company, including involving a lawyer.

These parents in the UK have no option but to watch their child die because the government won't release their child. They have NO choice.

You have no clue what you're talking about. None. At. All.

No one's giving Entyvio away. It's an expensive infusion that has to be administered like chemo under medical supervision. You don't know anything about the child's mother and her health insurance choices, so just STFU with your judgment. You also don't know how long the child's had a chronic illness; kids can present with IBD, be diagnosed, and immediately need to have their colons removed to save their lives. People get sick AFTER they've selected insurance and then have to try to make that coverage work or they don't have any choices about their coverage. How long should a child be having bloody diarrhea, losing massive amounts of weight to the point of emaciation, and deteriorating while the appeals are done and the lawyers battle it out? To even suggest that to bolster your own weak and erroneous points and to justify our health care system shows the kind of horrible person you are.

Anonymous wrote:The US has the best healthcare in the world..... but only for the 1% and people who can afford it. For most regular people there are steep and serious limits to what we can get without bankrupting us.

This is why we need a universal healthcare system, to rein costs in and make healthcare reachable again for people. I'm in favor of having private treatment options available in addition to public as many countries do but the bottom line is that we need a serious fix. The GOP plan goes in exactly the wrong direction and fixes nothing.

a. More than the 1% in America have and do benefit from the best healthcare in the world.

b. Universal healthcare, some thoughts from a WSJ physical poster today. It the American Public agreeable to this?

Characteristics of single payer countries:
1) Smaller, uniform populations with similar beliefs and work ethics.
2) On average, every worker pays 50% in taxes.
3) Costs are controlled by government controlled rationing guidelines.
4) Malpractice decisions are made by government panels
5) Physicians have unions with the right to strike.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you are comfortable allowing government to make decisions for you even if you can afford to go private?

As ok as I am with some administrative insurance employee making decisions for me after I paid the company for coverage.

PP here-A child I know has Crohn's disease and is flaring badly, despite using Humira. She's been admitted to the hospital because she's having bloody diarrhea and is very sick. Her doctor wants to try her on Entyvio, a relatively new biologic developed specifically for IBD. She can go home when she's "only" having bloody diarrhea 10-12 times a day, rather than mostly continuously. The insurance company says they'll cover Entyvio, but not on an inpatient basis. Without the trying the Entyvio, it'll be hard to stablize her so she can get the Entyvio as an outpatient, but she can't get it covered as an inpatient. So, the dr. has to try to find some other less theraputic and desirable way to stablize her so she can be released long enough to get the Entyvio as an outpatient. Nevermind that she's seriously ill and suffering, she's not able to get the most beneficial treatment when she needs it.

WTF kind of sense does that make?

Drug companies will bypass insurance companies and give the drug for free in cases like this. Doctor won't ask for it - parents have to. They could also just buy it themselves outside the insurance and bring it to the doctor. There ARE choices. These parents in the UK have 1.8 million dollars. They aren't asking the government to do anything but release their child to them and the government is saying no, your child will die here and without your say.

By the way? Your friend's child can go home any time her parents sign a release to get her out. The hospital cannot hold her prisoner in this country. Your friend also had choices of insurance companies, and clearly didn't research this aspect of things, given she has a chronically ill child. They can also appeal it further up in the insurance company, including involving a lawyer.

These parents in the UK have no option but to watch their child die because the government won't release their child. They have NO choice.

I understand that the UK parents are asking for the medical transport and have been denied it. If they have privately contracted medical transport but have not been allowed to use it, that's slightly different. However, it is true in this country and in the UK that the doctors can have the final say, especially once the courts get involved. Doctors and hospitals can overrule parents, if the parents are not acting in the best interests of the child. Sometimes doctors and hospitals abuse that, but in this instance, they are correct.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you are comfortable allowing government to make decisions for you even if you can afford to go private?

Your re-phrasing the issue and fake outrage make me want to puke.

No, that's the way it is.
Parents loose all the rights to make decisions as soon as baby is admitted to the hospital. Doctors will decide his faith.


Personally, I think if the baby is terminally I'll, but if he was any other color than white, PC would play in his favor and he would get transported to the US.

Personally, I think your spelling indicates that the validity of your opinions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you are comfortable allowing government to make decisions for you even if you can afford to go private?

As ok as I am with some administrative insurance employee making decisions for me after I paid the company for coverage.

PP here-A child I know has Crohn's disease and is flaring badly, despite using Humira. She's been admitted to the hospital because she's having bloody diarrhea and is very sick. Her doctor wants to try her on Entyvio, a relatively new biologic developed specifically for IBD. She can go home when she's "only" having bloody diarrhea 10-12 times a day, rather than mostly continuously. The insurance company says they'll cover Entyvio, but not on an inpatient basis. Without the trying the Entyvio, it'll be hard to stablize her so she can get the Entyvio as an outpatient, but she can't get it covered as an inpatient. So, the dr. has to try to find some other less theraputic and desirable way to stablize her so she can be released long enough to get the Entyvio as an outpatient. Nevermind that she's seriously ill and suffering, she's not able to get the most beneficial treatment when she needs it.

WTF kind of sense does that make?

Drug companies will bypass insurance companies and give the drug for free in cases like this. Doctor won't ask for it - parents have to. They could also just buy it themselves outside the insurance and bring it to the doctor. There ARE choices. These parents in the UK have 1.8 million dollars. They aren't asking the government to do anything but release their child to them and the government is saying no, your child will die here and without your say.

By the way? Your friend's child can go home any time her parents sign a release to get her out. The hospital cannot hold her prisoner in this country. Your friend also had choices of insurance companies, and clearly didn't research this aspect of things, given she has a chronically ill child. They can also appeal it further up in the insurance company, including involving a lawyer.

These parents in the UK have no option but to watch their child die because the government won't release their child. They have NO choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you are comfortable allowing government to make decisions for you even if you can afford to go private?

Your re-phrasing the issue and fake outrage make me want to puke.

No, that's the way it is.
Parents loose all the rights to make decisions as soon as baby is admitted to the hospital. Doctors will decide his faith.


Personally, I think if the baby is terminally I'll, but if he was any other color than white, PC would play in his favor and he would get transported to the US.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you are comfortable allowing government to make decisions for you even if you can afford to go private?

As ok as I am with some administrative insurance employee making decisions for me after I paid the company for coverage.

PP here-A child I know has Crohn's disease and is flaring badly, despite using Humira. She's been admitted to the hospital because she's having bloody diarrhea and is very sick. Her doctor wants to try her on Entyvio, a relatively new biologic developed specifically for IBD. She can go home when she's "only" having bloody diarrhea 10-12 times a day, rather than mostly continuously. The insurance company says they'll cover Entyvio, but not on an inpatient basis. Without the trying the Entyvio, it'll be hard to stablize her so she can get the Entyvio as an outpatient, but she can't get it covered as an inpatient. So, the dr. has to try to find some other less theraputic and desirable way to stablize her so she can be released long enough to get the Entyvio as an outpatient. Nevermind that she's seriously ill and suffering, she's not able to get the most beneficial treatment when she needs it.

WTF kind of sense does that make?

It means we already have death panels in the form of private sector insurance companies. And it's been that way for decades.

Absolutely; but that seems acceptable to a large portion of the population that either doesn't care or doesn't believe that it's true.

The US has the best healthcare in the world..... but only for the 1% and people who can afford it. For most regular people there are steep and serious limits to what we can get without bankrupting us.

This is why we need a universal healthcare system, to rein costs in and make healthcare reachable again for people. I'm in favor of having private treatment options available in addition to public as many countries do but the bottom line is that we need a serious fix. The GOP plan goes in exactly the wrong direction and fixes nothing.

Anonymous wrote:So you are comfortable allowing government to make decisions for you even if you can afford to go private?

In this case the government doctors are making a decision for someone's child, to protect that child from a parent's desire to subject the child to an experimental procedure which is sure to be unsuccessful. They are taking into account the trauma to the child of traveling to the location as well as the trial itself.

If it were an adult who wished to have this experimental treatment, and pay for it themselves, then fine (and I believe that the doctors would have no say in what an adult tries to do.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you are comfortable allowing government to make decisions for you even if you can afford to go private?

As ok as I am with some administrative insurance employee making decisions for me after I paid the company for coverage.

PP here-A child I know has Crohn's disease and is flaring badly, despite using Humira. She's been admitted to the hospital because she's having bloody diarrhea and is very sick. Her doctor wants to try her on Entyvio, a relatively new biologic developed specifically for IBD. She can go home when she's "only" having bloody diarrhea 10-12 times a day, rather than mostly continuously. The insurance company says they'll cover Entyvio, but not on an inpatient basis. Without the trying the Entyvio, it'll be hard to stablize her so she can get the Entyvio as an outpatient, but she can't get it covered as an inpatient. So, the dr. has to try to find some other less theraputic and desirable way to stablize her so she can be released long enough to get the Entyvio as an outpatient. Nevermind that she's seriously ill and suffering, she's not able to get the most beneficial treatment when she needs it.

WTF kind of sense does that make?

It means we already have death panels in the form of private sector insurance companies. And it's been that way for decades.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you are comfortable allowing government to make decisions for you even if you can afford to go private?

As ok as I am with some administrative insurance employee making decisions for me after I paid the company for coverage.

PP here-A child I know has Crohn's disease and is flaring badly, despite using Humira. She's been admitted to the hospital because she's having bloody diarrhea and is very sick. Her doctor wants to try her on Entyvio, a relatively new biologic developed specifically for IBD. She can go home when she's "only" having bloody diarrhea 10-12 times a day, rather than mostly continuously. The insurance company says they'll cover Entyvio, but not on an inpatient basis. Without the trying the Entyvio, it'll be hard to stablize her so she can get the Entyvio as an outpatient, but she can't get it covered as an inpatient. So, the dr. has to try to find some other less theraputic and desirable way to stablize her so she can be released long enough to get the Entyvio as an outpatient. Nevermind that she's seriously ill and suffering, she's not able to get the most beneficial treatment when she needs it.

WTF kind of sense does that make?

Anonymous wrote:So you are comfortable allowing government to make decisions for you even if you can afford to go private?

As ok as I am with some administrative insurance employee making decisions for me after I paid the company for coverage.

I have a rare disorder, it's congenital so I was born with it. Throughout my life there have been a multitude of doctors who have "life saving" or "life altering" treatments that they have offered to try on me. Basically, these doctors wanted to experiment on me, with drugs, gene therapy, surgeries, etc. My parents basically said no to all of them. As an adult, I did travel to France to participate in what I had thought was proven gene therapy for my condition, that my US insurance wouldn't cover. Within one week I almost died, it turned out the doctors had lied to us, they had never tried it on someone with my gene mutation. Using humans as guinea pigs is very dangerous. I understand the desperation of these parents, but IMO this US doctor is using this child's body as a voodoo doll experiment. It's so unethical to give these parents any hope by this doctor who says "well, my treatment has kind of worked for other kids with other conditions so what the hell I see no reason it won't work on you." The child has no brain activity. It's basically Terry Schiavo. There is nothing that will change that. To medivac him, with all those machines, across the ocean so the doctor can poke and pride, etc. it's wrong.