Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Fair enough, I should have noted that I wasn't certain as to who you were responding to.

All's fair then.

This thread has been reported, and rightfully. due to cross allegations of racism et all I am having the moderators look at this thread to see if any action is appropriate.

This thread is closed.

This thread has now been reopened. racist statements or unwarranted charges of racism permitted on this board and will be dealt with temporary or permanent suspension of your account. Stick to the topic and don't attack the poster.

I'm not entirely certain how illegal immigrants ended up dominating this conversation (well, I guess I know, I just also know that it would be rude to say it), but call me a giant pinko hippie but I think that telling somebody "it would cost too much to keep you alive, so we're not going to" after previously agreeing to pay the bill is a little...wrong.

Now, it's possible that these 98 people have low chances of recovery, and that this is fairly sensible cut. For me it's the renege that's the problem.

Polonius wrote:I'm not entirely certain how illegal immigrants ended up dominating this conversation (well, I guess I know, I just also know that it would be rude to say it), but call me a giant pinko hippie but I think that telling somebody "it would cost too much to keep you alive, so we're not going to" after previously agreeing to pay the bill is a little...wrong.

Now, it's possible that these 98 people have low chances of recovery, and that this is fairly sensible cut. For me it's the renege that's the problem.

One part of this idea isn't even wrong. I am all for helping people, but when there is a diminishing return on someone pending a transplant (which, in many cases never comes) is money down the drain for a good cause. But, it is also a giant drain. It's a very touchy issue. It's regrettably a side effect of budget cuts.

With illegals, I don't condemn someone for trying to get to the US, as long as they're interested in assimilating to an extent, using a legitimate SSN, filing taxes and eventually becoming a citizen. If they wish to work here on a Work Visa, that's fine too, that's above board as well, Not a problem. But when someone comes into this country, does none of the above, and expects free healthcare via the Emergency room, free schooling (even though they file no state or federal taxes) and all the other services provided by the public, but complain because they are considered criminals (and use rascism as a cannard to control the debate). They broke federal law, not really a gray area there.

Stormrider wrote: They broke federal law, not really a gray area there.

So did every business that ever hired one. Until they're reviled as much as the workers, I feel comfortable assuming that there is more than simple outrage at breaking the law.

As Stormrider says there has to be a cut off point. The Scienceprogress article is somewhat guilty of sensationalism and emblazoning the truth with graphic wording such as "Death panels" and "waiting to die".

What it kind of tells you is that people have the difficult choice of chosing who are the best people with the best survivability for these operations based upon organ availbility and money. Whilst high minded morals say "why is money a factor in medical treatments" the fact remains that money really is one of the factors but it isn't the only one. The article says either poor or uninsurable by private insurance due to pre-existing conditions are not going to get the operations which is correct and sadly is a vital thing to consider. Also the aftercare costs are huge. After a transplant you are on medication for life with regular check ups, tests and specialist appointments.

I have to refer patients each week and be told by specialists that the patient will not be seen due to there being no money or no way of a patient getting any better. That does not stop such shameful reporting that these "death panels" has been subjected to.

This happens every day, in every civilised country on the planet.

I had to watch my father die. He was discharged from hospital with a letter from the specialist saying sorry you have been discharged and there isn't much we can do for you anymore.
Whilst he was my father I knew that there is always an option for something else to try but the Medic in me also told me that in reality there really was not much else what can be done as either way his survivability was negligable.

The choice is painful but people live in cuckoo land thinking everything is all happy and light but the reality is that people are chosen to live or die every day. This is no different.

In the UK we have had several examples of some cancer drugs which could extend the life of some terminal cancer patients by months, but it cost £18,000-40,000 for the treatment.

The issue is that that moeny represents, for example, six to 12 months employment costs for an experienced midwife who will deliver dozens of babies, or annual dental checks for 3,000 people, or maybe an actual cure for some other type of cancer in several patients.

So the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) did not licence the drugs for the NHS to prescribe.

I have trouble imagining that those 98 transplant patients represented anything approaching an expense who's cut would have any real impact on the state budget.

Kilkrazy wrote:So the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) did not licence the drugs for the NHS to prescribe.

There's something darkly hilarious about the group who denied cancer treatment drugs to terminal patients having the acronym NICE.

Each transplant costs, on average, between $51,000 to $235,000 for each op, the highest quoted is over 300K for a liver transplant. That does not include the support thereafter which can easily be that much again purely for the drugs and blood tests.

So, on average, each patient is over $100,000 as a very conservative estimate. So, as a very loose estimatre that is 10 million dollars spent on people at a high risk of the op failing!

Tyyr wrote:I have trouble imagining that those 98 transplant patients represented anything approaching an expense who's cut would have any real impact on the state budget.

Kilkrazy wrote:So the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) did not licence the drugs for the NHS to prescribe.

There's something darkly hilarious about the group who denied cancer treatment drugs to terminal patients having the acronym NICE.

Yes.

To be clear though, you can still get the drugs but not on the NHS.

Polonius wrote:

Stormrider wrote: They broke federal law, not really a gray area there.

So did every business that ever hired one. Until they're reviled as much as the workers, I feel comfortable assuming that there is more than simple outrage at breaking the law.

I concur with your statement, if there is no incentive for them to be here (illegally provided jobs), the majority of them will leave.

Kilkrazy wrote:Yes.

To be clear though, you can still get the drugs but not on the NHS.

Oh I know, still funny as hell though.

Elmodiddly wrote:Each transplant costs, on average, between $51,000 to $235,000 for each op, the highest quoted is over 300K for a liver transplant. That does not include the support thereafter which can easily be that much again purely for the drugs and blood tests.

So, on average, each patient is over $100,000 as a very conservative estimate. So, as a very loose estimatre that is 10 million dollars spent on people at a high risk of the op failing!

And with an 8.5 Billion dollar budget for 2010 that amounts to... 0.117% of the budget. Balanced that bitch right up.

Ooh get you! I didn't realise we were scoring points!

What you don't read, however, is how many do have the operations that they need. Like I said; you have to draw the line based upon survivability and on limited budgets.

You might have a 8.5 billion dollar budget on medical care but the vast majority of that is already spent on pay, equipement, other operations, emergency medical funding etc so what appears to be a huge budget is already almost spent.

Stormrider wrote:
I concur with your statement, if there is no incentive for them to be here (illegally provided jobs), the majority of them will leave.

We wouldn't want them freely competing for our American jobs. Free competition is something that only Americans do, and the government ruins by providing.

Elmodiddly wrote:What you don't read, however, is how many do have the operations that they need. Like I said; you have to draw the line based upon survivability and on limited budgets.

And those people had already been told they would be covered for their transplants only to have it retroactively voided. This wasn't 98 new people coming and being denied, it was 98 people who had already been approved being told the state had changed its mind.

You might have a 8.5 billion dollar budget on medical care but the vast majority of that is already spent on pay, equipement, other operations, emergency medical funding etc so what appears to be a huge budget is already almost spent.

The 8.5 Billion is Arizona's state budget.

I wonder if those patients voted Republican or Democrat.

Republicans I bet. But I won't be Bitter about it like the doctor that wouldn't treat people who voted for obama.

I'm not racist, I hate everyone who isn't me.

Polonius wrote: call me a giant pinko hippie

Ok.

You're a giant pinko hippie.

djones520 wrote:But they are. The money that pays for it all comes from the same pot. When one thing is taking more out of that pot, there is less for other things.

No, they are not directly correlated. You could increase both by cutting elsewhere, or by increasing revenue.

The simple fact is that cutting these people from the transfer list is a choice, it is not created entirely through border control costs. That's just an excuse you're making.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Elmodiddly wrote:As Stormrider says there has to be a cut off point. The Scienceprogress article is somewhat guilty of sensationalism and emblazoning the truth with graphic wording such as "Death panels" and "waiting to die".

What it kind of tells you is that people have the difficult choice of chosing who are the best people with the best survivability for these operations based upon organ availbility and money. Whilst high minded morals say "why is money a factor in medical treatments" the fact remains that money really is one of the factors but it isn't the only one.

I agree, there has to be a point where the cost of treatment is too high for the benefit.

The problem here is that that line isn't being drawn based on consideration of the cost of treatment against the benefits to the patient, it's being drawn to make sure the state comes in on budget. In a couple of years when revenue is up do you offer transplants for everyone, before the next crash and then cut everyone on the list again?

Things like this need to be taken as a core budget activity, the cost kept under control but consistent from year to year. If you're deserving of a transplant in 2008 you're deserving of a transplant in 2010.

It isn't being cut at random to save money. The money is a factor but deciding who is cut is based upon the survivablity of the patient in question. There is a difference.

The rules change constantly, even when the budget is not much of a concern as medical evidence suggests that the line is drawn a little tighter in certain circumstances. It just so happens that this time it has gone public and people are hyping this up with gratuitous wording to get as much exposure as possible.

Elmodiddly, I think you should consider that these cuts were done retroactively. That does put a differnet spin on the situation.

You are both right.

The Republicans (or Democrats) shouldn't go back on election promises.

If they do, it makes sense to pick the cases which are the least likely to succeed in medical terms -- in other words, to avoid wasting money if possible.

Is the money being diverted to a different part of the medical budget, or used to enforce the Pass law or something?

Elmodiddly wrote:It isn't being cut at random to save money. The money is a factor but deciding who is cut is based upon the survivablity of the patient in question. There is a difference.

These people's survivability was good enough a year ago, but now it appararently isn't. What changed was funding, not the chances of the patients.

The rules change constantly, even when the budget is not much of a concern as medical evidence suggests that the line is drawn a little tighter in certain circumstances. It just so happens that this time it has gone public and people are hyping this up with gratuitous wording to get as much exposure as possible.

Dude, I work in the public sector, in budgets. And I'm telling you these kinds of core activities are not the kind of thing that is typically cut. Instead you see cuts to infrastructure, to admininistration, to training and the like. You don't cut things where you can say 'now that person is not going to die'.

I haven't read into this but it's more than lilkely to have come out of some dodgy across the board budget dictate - 'every department must cut 10% or something'. Hell, Health could be cutting this to make a show of the budget cuts, and try and win themselves some more money.

But understand cutting care for people already in the system is an extremely weird thing.

"You, Mr Mayor, will be saving the lives of millions of registered voters."